DENIED and Opinion Filed May 22, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00456-CV 

IN RE 1 COVENTRY COURT, LLC, MOSHE FELDHENDLER, AND 

LEAH FELDHENDLER, Relators 

Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-01541 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Molberg, Nowell, and Kennedy 

Opinion by Justice Nowell 

This original proceeding involves a contempt order signed by the trial court 

on October 13, 2022. Because the parties are familiar with the underlying facts, we 

provide only those details necessary to dispose of this original proceeding and issue 

this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. 

1 Coventry Court, LLC and The Downs of Hillcrest Residential Association, 

Inc. entered into a settlement agreement on April 26, 2022 resolving disputes 

regarding property located at 1 Coventry Court. After relators failed to comply with 

the settlement and the final judgment signed on June 30, 2022, the Association filed 

a motion for contempt. The trial court held a hearing and subsequently signed a 
 –2– 

contempt order on October 13, 2022 and ordered relators to pay the Association 

$15,000 in fines. 

Contempt orders may be reviewed by writ of mandamus. In re Braden, 483 

S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding). A writ 

of mandamus issues to correct a clear abuse of discretion when no adequate remedy 

by appeal exists. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 

2004) (orig. proceeding); In re Autumn Ranch, LLC, No. 05-24-00255-CV, 2024 

WL 1190480, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 20, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 

Relators raise four issues; however, we do not address the merits of their 

arguments because we conclude relators’ petition is barred by laches. Although 

mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable 

principles. In re Barnes, No. 05-22-00312-CV, 2022 WL 1955754, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas June 3, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). One such principle is that 

“equity aids the diligent and not those who slumber on their rights.” Id. (citation 

and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, delaying the filing of a petition for 

mandamus relief may waive the right to mandamus unless the relator can justify the 

delay. Id. “A delay of only a few months can constitute laches and result in denial 

of mandamus relief.” Id.; see also Autumn Ranch, LLC, 2024 WL 1190480, at *1 

(denying petition because of ten-month delay); In re Users Sys. Servs., Inc., 22 

S.W.3d 331, 337 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding) (concluding seven-month delay 

precluded mandamus relief). 
 –3– 

Here, the trial court signed the contempt order on October 13, 2022, yet 

relators did not file a petition for mandamus until May 15, 2023. Relators provide 

no explanation for the seven-month delay in seeking mandamus relief. Accordingly, 

we conclude that relators’ unreasonable delay bars their right to mandamus relief. 

We deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

230456F.P05 

/Erin A. Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE