See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52. 8( d) ( “ W hen deny i ng r el i ef , t he co ur t m ay han d down an opi ni on b ut i s not 1 re q u i re d to d o s o .”); T EX . R. A PP . P . 47 . 4 (di s t i ng ui s hi ng op i ni on s an d m em ora nd um op i ni on s ). 

### NU M BER 13- 10- 0031 5-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG IN RE LENOX M ORTGA GE XI I, LLC On Petit ion fo r Writ of M an da mus . M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, B en av ide s, an d Vela Per Curia m M emor andum Opini on 1 Re la t o r, L e n o x Mo rt ga ge X I I , L L C, f il e d a p e t it io n fo r wr ito f m a n d a m u s in t h e a b o ve caus e on June 4, 2010. The Cou rtreq uest ed th at t he real par ti es in int er estfil e respon ses to th e pe tition for w rit of ma nda mu s, and such resp onse s w ere received f rom: ( 1) Marco Ram irez , Beb e R a m ir e z, indiv idua lly and d/b/ a Now

Managem entComp any, Sevil le McAl len Apar

tments , LLC , and Now

Co. Loan Serv ic es, LLC (“ the R amirezpar ti es” ), and (2) Herman A . Neidha rt, in divi dua lly a nd as Gen eral Partn er o f 6 th and Nolana Apartm ent s,2

Ltd ., an d Neidh art F a m il y L im ited Pa rtnership . On August 13 , 201 0, relato r filed a reply to th e respo nse f iled by the Ramirez parties. Ma ndamus is an “ extraordin ar y ” re medy . In re Sw. Bell T el. C o. , L. P., 235 S. W .3d 6 1 9 , 6 2 3 ( Tex . 200 7) ( or ig . proceed ing ); see In r e T eamR ock

et, L.P. , 2 5 6 S . W . 3 d 257, 259 (Tex. 2008 ) ( orig. proceed ing). In order to obtain ma nda mu s relief , the relator mu st show thatthe tr ial co urt c lea rl y abus ed i ts dis creti on and that the rela tor has no a deq uate reme dy by app eal. In re Pru de n t ia l In s . Co . o f

A m. , 148 S.W .3d 124, 13 5- 36 ( Tex . 200 4) (o ri g . proceed ing ); see In re McAllen Me d . C tr. , Inc. , 275 S.W .3d 4 58, 4 62 ( Tex . 200 8) (o ri g . proceed ing ). T he Cou rt, having examine d an d f ully conside red the petitio n for w rit of man dam us, and t he respon ses thereto, is of the o pin ion thatthe r ela tor has not show n i tse lf enti tl ed to the reli ef soug ht i n th e p e ti ti o n for w ri t of mandamus . Fi rs t, cons ide ri ng the par ti cul ar factual and leg al back g ro u n d o f this proceed ing , rela tor has not show n tha t i ts appel lat e re medy i s i nadeq uate. S e e In re Pru de n t ia l In s . Co . o f

A m. , 148 S.W .3d a t 136 . Seco nd, re lat or has not show n tha t t he tr ial co urt coul d re asona bly hav e re ached onl y one deci si on on th e facts pre se nted her ein , and ac cordin g ly , has not est abl is hed a cl ear abus e of dis creti on. Se e Li

be r ty Nat ’ l F i r e In s . C o. v

. Akin , 9 2 7 S.W .2d 627 , 629 (Tex. 1996 ); W alk er v. Packer

, 827 S.W .2d 8 33, 8 39 ( Tex . 199 2) . Third, an d final ly , re lief by mandamus is not appropr iat e w her e there ar e f act ual disput es about the rela tor ’s r ig ht or the respon dent’ s d uty . Brady v. Fourte enth Court of Ap pea ls , 7 9 5 S . W . 2 d 7 1 2 , 7 1 4 (T e x. 1990) . Thus, the peti ti on for w ri t of m andamus is D EN IED . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52. 8(a).

PERC UR IAM Del iv er ed and filed the 17th day of Aug ust , 201 0.