1 ... T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2008- CI
- 08981 , s t y l ed C h e ry l C h e n a u lt-S h u m a k e , In d iv id u a lly and as Nex t Fr i end of

Kayl a Chenaul t

, a M i nor v . Avi oni cs S ervi ces, I nc. , Sout hs t ar Ai r cr af

t I nt er i or s , I

nc. , Ces s na A irc ra ft C o m p a n y , a n d T

o y A ir, In c . , p e n d ing in the 2 2 4 th J u d ic ia l D istric t C o u rt, B e x a r C o u n ty, T e x a s , th e H o n o ra b le A nt o ni a A rt eaga presi d i ng.

2 ... Jan et and M auc h onl y s eek r el i ef wi t h r ega r d t o t he t r i al cour t ’ s deni al of t he di s mi s s al of

t he cl ai ms a s s er t ed b y C h e ryl a s K a yla ’s n e x t frie n d
. In fo o tno te 2 o f t h e ir p e tit io n , Ja n e t an d M a u c h sta te , “R e la to rs stip u la te tha t [C h e ryl] m a y p u rs u e he r in d ivid u a l cla im s, if a n y, i n the B e x a r C o u n ty p ro c e e d ing .” i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION
No. 04-09-00303- CV IN RE Jane t CH EN AU LT and De nnis Mauch Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 Opinion by : Phy lis J . Speedlin , J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone , J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin , J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Aug ust 19, 2009 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS CONDI TI ONAL L Y GRANTED Relators Janet Chenault and De nnis Mauch see k mandamus relief from the t rial cour t’s order de nyingthe ir

mot ion to d ism iss a

wr on g ful de a th l aws uit

fi le d in Te xas b y

Che ry l Ch e na ult

Shumake , Ind ivi du a lly

and a s N e xt F ri e nd

of Ka y la Che na ult
. 2 J anet a

nd Mauch c ontend that the tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r p e rm its Che ry l to pr oc e e d in

re pr e se nt in g Kay la

in t he Te xas l aws uit

in
c on tr a ve nti on

of thr e e or de rs fr om a Mic hig an c ourt the re by vio la tin g the fu ll f

a ithand c re dit c la us e04
- 09
- 00 30 3- CV

- 2- of the United States Constitution. J anet a nd Mauch further contend they have no a dequate reme dy by appea l as the trial cour

t’s order allows t h e re l itigation of issues a lrea dy ruled upon by

the Michig an cour

t. Be cause we conclude the trial court abused i ts discretion by not givingfull faith and
c re dit to t he Mic hig a

n c ourt ’s Oc tob e r 4 , 2 00 7 o rd e r, we c on dit ion a lly g ra nt t he wr it. B ACKG ROUND Richard Chena

ult died when the plane in which he wa s a passe ng er crashe d into L ake Michig an nea

r Milwaukee , Wis consin on J une 4, 2007. The plane wa s an air a mbulance, a

nd Richard wa s a member

of an or g an retrie val team from the University of Michig an. At the time of his death, R ichar d lived in Michig an with his wife, J anet. Richard’ s minor child, Kay la, also lived in M ic hig an w ithhe r m oth e r, Che ry l. On July 26 , 2 00 7, a Mic hig an co ur t app oin te d Che ry

l as co ns e rv a tor of Ka

y la . O n A ugus t 8, 2007, a Michig an probate court appointed J anet as the persona l r epre sentative of Richa rd’s e state. On September 5, 2007, Cheryl f iled a petition in Kay

la’s conser

vatorship action for a

pproval of a c ontrac t to hire a Te x as law f irm, Slack & Davis, L.L .P., to represe nt Kayla in any litigation
re la tin g t o R i c h ar d ’ s p l an e c r a s h
. O n S e p t e mb e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 , C h e r y l f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n t he pr ob a te action for supervised a dminist ration and the remova l of J anet a s persona l repre sentative. On Se pte mbe r 2 0, 20 07 , Jan e t f ile d a mot ion re qu e sti ngthe Mic hig an p ro bate c ourt to approve a conting ency

fee ag ree ment with Schaden, Katz man, L amper t & Mc Clune (SKL &M) , a Michig an law f

irm J anet ha d reta ined to investigate and pur sue cla ims a ri sing f rom Richard’ s wrong ful death. The motion noted that both the owner a nd the oper at or of the pla ne that cr ashed
wer e Michig an compa

nies. The plane also appar ently had substantial w ork perf ormed on it in Te x as by Te xas c omp anie s.04
- 09
- 00 30 3- CV

3 ... A l t ho ugh C hery l co nt end s i n her b ri ef t hat s he was r em o ved as co nser vat o r “ as a s anct i o n f o r bri ngi ng t he T exas wrongf

ul de at h s ui t , ” t he t ri al co urt ’ s reasons f o r r em o vi ng he r were no t that li m i t ed
. T he t ri al co urt noted at t he Se pt e mb e r 29 , 20 08 h e a r i n g , “ T h e r e a r e qu e s t i on s a r i s i n g ou t of t h e r e po r t i n g of i n c om e of S oc i a l S e c u r i t y , w or k c om p m o n e y no t go ing into a r e s tr ic te d a c c o u n t, q u e stio n s re g a rd ing the T IA A -C R E P fun d s, a n d the ‘M y F a the r’s H e a rt’ acco unt
. A nd t ho se ar e q uest i o ns t hat t he C o urt i s go i ng t o ad d res s i n t he heari ng on t he ap p roval o f t he acco unt
. B ut q u e stio n s h a v e b e e n ra ise d . A n d the C o u rt is c o n c e rn e d b e c a u se I d o n ’t b e liev e tha t t h e re ha s b e e n full ca n d o r to this trib u n a l, a n d tha t’s i m p o rta n t t o the C o u rt; an d I find tha t t h a t’s b e e n lac k ing he re .”

- 3- On Octobe r 4, 2007, the Michig an probate cour t held a hea

ring on the m otion to approve the
co n t i n gen cy

fee ag ree ment and on the pe tition for supervised a dminist ration. At the he aring, Cheryl’s attorney

urg ed the Michig an cour

t to appoint Sl ack & Davis, L .L .P. to pursue the wrong ful de a th cl a ims . I n th e a lte rn a tiv e , Ch e ry l’ s atto rn e y

ur g e d th e Mic hig an c ourt to “ a llo w b oth

fi rm s to act a s co-c ounsel, eac h being compensated base d upon fee s attributable to the fa mily members who choose to a lign themse lves.” In view of the tension that appea red to e x ist be tween Janet and othe r family members, the Mic higa

n p ro b ate judge or dere d supervised a dminist ration but denied the reque st to remove Janet as per sonal repr esentative. The Michigan pr obate judg e also sig ned an or der
a pp ro vin g Jane t’ s c on tin g e nc y fe e a g re e me nt a nd a pp oin tin g SKL & M “ a s c ouns e l to purs ue c la ims for wr ong ful death.” This order was not appe aled. On June 6, 20 08 , Che ry

l fi le d a pe tit ion in B e xar County , T e xas, a sse rt ingwr on g fu l de a th claims arising from R i ch ar d ’s d eath. Cher y l filed the petition individually and as ne x t friend of Ka y la . T we nty

min ute s late r, Jane t f

ile d a c omp la int

in M ic hig a

n a sse rt inga

wr on g fu l de a th c la im. On J uly 28, 2 0 0 8 , J anet f

iled a petition to hold Chery l in civil contempt for filing the wrong ful death action in Texas. At a hea ring h el d on September 29, 2008, the Michig an cour t
re mov e d Ch e ry

l a s K ay la ’s c on se rv a tor , ap po int e d a suc c e sso r c on se rv a tor , a nd he ld C he ry

l in c ivi l
c on te mpt of

c ourt
. 3 On Oc tob e r 3, 20 08 , ano the r he ari ng wa s he ld by the Mic hig an c ourt to d isc us s the orde rs ver

bally pronounce d on September 29, 2008, a n d t h e M i chig an cour t signe d a wr itten
or de r i n the c on ser vato rs hip a c tio n r e mov ingChe ry l a s K ay la ’s c on se rv a tor , a pp oin tin g De nn is04
- 09
- 00 30 3- CV

- 4- Mauch a s succe ssor conser vator, a nd order ing Che ry

l to assign all of her interest as next friend of Ka y la in t he Te xas l iti g a tio n to Ma uc h. On Oc tob e r 3 , 2 00 8, Ch ery l si g ne d a wr itt e n a ssi g nme nt,
a ssi g nin g a ll o f h e r r ig hts a s K ay la ’s ne xt fr ie nd in t he Te xas c a

us e of a c tio n to Jane t in

he r c a pa c ity as per sonal repr esentative of Richar d’s estate
. On Dec ember 22, 2008, the Michig an cour t signe d
a wr itten order in the pr obate a ction holding Cher y l in contempt of court a

nd order ing the assig nment of the Te xas c a

us e of a c tio n to the pe rs on a l r e pr e se nta tiv e of Ric ha

rd ’s e state . Ch e ry

l a pp e a le d b oth the Oc tob e r 3 , 2 00 8, and

De c e mbe r 2 2, 20 08 or de rs . On Janu a ry 12 , 2 00 9, Che ry

l f ile d a mot ion a s K ay la ’s ne xt fr ie nd

in t he T e xas l aws uit seekingthe appointment of a g uardia n ad litem to repr esent Kayla’s int ere sts. On J anuar y 15, 2009, J anet f iled a re quest for a

n emer g ency

hear ing on contempt i n the M ichig an court. On J anuar y 23, 2009, the Texas court a

ppointed L amont J eff

erson a s Kayla’s guardia

n ad litem. On Fe bruar

y 9, 2009, the Michig an cour

t held a hea

ring on J anet’ s contempt request and rule d that the appe al of the October 3, 2008 and Dec ember 22, 2008 order s stay ed any proce eding s, including a co n tempt proce eding , reg ardingthose order s. On Fe bruar

y 26, 2009, the Michig an cour t of appea ls consolidated the appea ls of the Oc tober 3, 2008, and De cembe r 22, 2008 orde rs. On Mar ch 26, 2009, the Michiga n court sig ned an or der in the conser

vatorship ac tion requiring Cheryl to file a final a ccountingno later than April 9, 2009. The c ourt furthe r orde red that all child support or other pa y ments made by Richard’ s estate f or the benef it of Kayla shall be pa id to conser vator Dennis Mauch. On M arc h 29, 2009, the Michig an cour t signe d an order

in the conser

vatorship ac tion requiring Cheryl to appear on May 1, 2009, to show
cause why

she should not be held in contempt of c ourt. I n her r esponse to the manda mus petition, Chery l sta te s th a t t

h is s h o w c a

u s e h e ar in g r e late d

to a n e w p e ti ti o nf

il e d b y M a u c h in the04
- 09
- 00 30 3- CV

- 5- co n s er v at o rs h i p ac t i o nal l egi n g m i s m an age m e n t o f K ay l a’ s es t at e f u n d s b y C h ery l an d

s ee k i n g a surcha rg e orde r, alongwith civil and criminal conte mpt charg es. The hear ing be g an on May 1, 2009, but was not completed. The hear ing w as sche duled to resume on July 13, 2009. On April 15, 2009, Janet and Mauc h intervene d in t he Te x as lawsuit. On Apr il 17, 2009, Jane t and Ma uc h f ile d a mot ion to di sm is s a sse rt ing : ( 1) Che ry l di d n ot h a ve the le g a l c a pa c ity to repr esent Ka

y la; and (2) the Michig an cour t’s order s are entitled to full f ai t h and credit. The tria l court de nied the motion to dism iss, and J anet a nd Mauch se ek mandamus relief f rom that order
. F U LL F AI T H AN D C R E D IT J anet a nd Mau ch co n t end that the trial court er red in de ny ing the motion to di smiss and pe rm itt ingChe ry

l to pr oc e e d a s Kay la ’s ne xt fr ie nd in c on tr a ve nti on of the Mic hig an c ourt ’s or de rs . J anet a nd Mauch c ontend that dismissal is required in or d er t o give full faith and c redit to the Mic hig an c ourt ’s Oc tob e r 4 , 2 00 7, Oc tob e r 3 , 2 00 8, and /or De c e mbe r 2 2, 20 08 or de rs . Cheryl responds that the Te x as court wa s not require d to give full faith and c redit to the October 3, 2008 order

or the De cembe r 22, 2008 orde r bec ause those or ders have bee n stay ed by the pe nd ing a pp e a l. Che ry

l fur the r re sp on ds that th e argume nt r e la tin g to t he Oc tob e r 4 , 2 00 7 o rd e r i s a “ne w ar g ument.” Although Che ryl cont en d s t he ar g ument relating to the Oc tober 4, 2007 orde r is a “ne w argument,” the motion to dismi ss filed by J anet a nd Mauch r efe rs to the Octo b er 4, 2007 order as approvingthe lawsuit filed by J anet. The moti o n notes that J anet, a s persona l repre sentative, ha d exclusive authority

to bring the wrongf

ul death c laim on Kayla’s beha lf. Moreove r, the Oc tober 4, 2007, order was attache d to the motion to dismiss as an exhibi t. At the beg inning of the hea ring , the trial judg e stated that she h ad re v i ew ed t h e motion to dism iss and the multiple orders fr om the04
- 09
- 00 30 3- CV

- 6- Michig an cour

t that were attache d. J anet’ s attorney corr ecte d the trial judg e’s misundersta nding that
a ll o f t he or de rs ha d b e e n a

pp e a le d. Jane t’ s atto rn e y la te r s ta te d, “ I f we ha d b ro ug ht t his mot ion

in J une of 2008, w e would be r elying solely on the other inde pendent g round that we ’ve a sserted, w hich is that mom pa rt i ci p at ed i n the Michig an hea ring s, asked that Mr. sla ck [sic] be appointed a s the lawy er to re prese nt the claims of eve ry body in Michig an – lost, and that’s the or der that’s under ta b A, which is the orde r ente red O ctober 4th, 2007, close to a y ear befor e th i s T ex as ca s e was filed. Th a t’ s an in de pe nd e nt –
. . . .” Jane t’ s a tto rn e y fu rt he r argue d, “ What is be fo re thi s c ourt is i de nti c a l. Who’s goingto repres en t t h e chil d in connec tion with her wrong ful death claims and ca uses of action? Who ar e g oing to be the lawy ers? All of those matters wer e litigated betwee n mom and wife i nM i ch i gan . ” A l t h o u gh we agr ee t h at m o re fo cu s wa s gi v en t o t h e 2 0 0 8 o rd er s d u ri n g t h e h ea ri n g, whether the Octobe r 4, 2007 orde r should be g iven full faith and c redit wa s p resented to the trial
c ourt a s an in de pe nd e nt g ro un d f or dis mis sa l. Mandamus issues only

to corre ct a c lear

abuse of discretion or a violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other ade quate r emedy at law. W alker v . Pack

er , 8 2 7 S. W. 2 d

8 3 3 , 8 3 9 ( T e x. 1992). The trial court abuses its discr etion when it f ails to pr operly apply

the law to the undisputed fac ts, w hen it a cts arbitra rily or unrea sonably , or when its ruling is ba sed on fa ct u al as s ertions unsupported by

the re cord. In re Barne

s , 1 2 7 S
. W
. 3 d

8 4 3 , 8 4 6 (T ex . Ap p . — S an An t o n i o 2 0 0 3 , o ri g. proce eding ). Ar tic le I V, Se c tio n 1 of

the Un ite d Stat e s Cons tit uti on re qu ir e s tha t e a c h s ta te g ive fu ll f a ith
and c re dit to the pu

bli c a c ts, re c or ds , an d judi c ia l pro c e e din g s of ev e ry oth e r s ta te . U .S. C O N ST . a rt
. I V, § 1 ; Bard v. Charles R. Mye rs Ins. Agenc y, Inc

. , 839 S.W .2d 791, 794 (Tex. 1992). Texas law require s a trial cour

t to give f ull faith and cr edit to a fore ign judg ment of a s i ster state unle ss an04
- 09
- 00 30 3- CV

- 7- exception is established. Enviropower, L.L.C

. v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc. , 2 6 5 S. W. 3 d 1 6 , 1 9 ( T e x. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.). The ref ore, w e will revie w the re cord to de termine wh e ther the trial cour

t m i s ap plied the law to the e stablished fac ts in concluding that Cheryl established an exception to full faith and cre dit e nforc ement of the Michig an order s. Se e id .; see also Jonsson v

. Ra nd Ra c ing , L. L.C. , 270 S.W .3d 320, 324 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pe t.).

“ Th e fu ll f

a ithand c re dit c la us e re qu ir e s tha t a val id jud g me nt f ro m on e state be e nf

or c e d in other states r eg ardle ss of the laws or public policy

of the o t h er s t ates.” Ba rd , 839 S.W .2d at 794.

“ F ull fa ithand

c redit is n ot r e qu ir e d, ho we ve r, wh e n a de c re e is i nte rl oc uto ry

or su bje c t to modification under the law of the rende ring state.” Id
. Cheryl relies on the languag e in Ba rd stating that full faith and credit is not require d when
a de c re e is s ub

je c t to mod if

ic a tio n to con te nd that the tr ia l court wa s n ot r e qu ir e d to g ive fu ll f a ith
an d c r e d i tt o t h e 2 0 0 8 M i c h i g ano r d e r s b e c a u s e t h o s e o r d e r s ar e o na p p e a l an d s u b j e c tt o a s t ay. Even if this court we re to a g ree with Cheryl’s argument relating to the 2008 or ders, the O ctober 4, 2007 order

was not appe aled a

nd is not subject to any

stay
. See Come rica Bank v . City of Adrian , 446 N.W.2d 5 5 3 , 5 6 1 ( M ic h
. Ct
. A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) ( n o ti n g a p p e a l o n ly s ta

y e d o r d e r b e in g a

p p e a le d not three other orde rs sig ned by trial court)
. I n the Octobe r 4, 2007 orde r, the Michig an cour t a ppointed SKL &M a s counsel “to pur sue
c la ims fo r w ro ng fu l de a th. ” Un de r M ic hig an la w, Jane t, as the pe rs on a l re pr e se ntativ e , is the on ly person e ntitled to bring a wrong ful death action. M I CH . C OMP . L A WS ANN . § 60 0. 29 22 (2 ) ( Wes t 20 09 ); Kull v. W

atzke , 326 N.W.2d 540, 541 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). W h en the Michig an cour t
a pp oin te d SKL & M to pur su e c la ims fo r w ro ng fu l de a th, it n e c e ssa ri ly inc lud e d a

ny wr on g fu l de a th claim that Kay

la had a s Richard’s c hild because that claim was a wron gful death claim. Under04
- 09
- 00 30 3- CV

- 8- Michig an law, K ay

la’s cla im clear ly

was re q u i red to be broug ht by J anet a s the persona l
re p re s en t at i v e. Kul l , 3 26 N. W.2 d at 54 1; He be rt v . Co le , 3 2 1 N
. W. 2 d 3 8 8 , 4 5 8 ( M ic h
. Ct
. A pp. 1982). Althoug h Texas law would g ener ally permit Cheryl to file a wrong ful death claim as Ka y la’s
ne xt fri end , Kay la ha s o nly on e wr on g fu l de a th c la im, and the Mic hig an c ourt ’s or de r a pp oin ts SKL & M to purs ue that c la im . Mor e ve r, in a pp oin tin g SKL & M, the Mic hig an c ourt e xpre ssl y
r e j e c t e d C h e r yl ’ s r e qu e s t t h a t S l a c k & D a v i s , L
. L
. P
. b e p e r m i t t e d t o p u r s u e t h a tc l a i m . A c c o r d i n g l y, allowing Slack & Davis, L .L .P. to pursue Kay la’s claim in T exas is contrary to the Michig an cour

t’s order which appointed SKL &M a s the law firm entitled to pursue that cla im. As a result, the trial court misapplied the law

and abuse d its discretion in denying th e m o t ion to dism iss the wrong ful death c laim broug ht by

Cheryl as Kay

la’s next friend. N O A D EQU A TE R E M E DY B Y A P P E AL J anet a nd Mauch c ontend in one sente nce that they do not have a

n adequate re medy

by appea l beca use the trial co u rt er red “ by allowing the re litigation of issues alr eady ruled upon by

another court with unquestioned jurisdiction.” Cheryl r esponds that an adequate reme dy exis ts beca

use: (1) Jane t and Ma uc h a re no t be ingfo rc e d to re lit ig a te any thi ngbu t vo lun tari ly

c ho se to i nterve ne in Texas; (2 ) J an et and Mauc h could pursue the reque sted dismissal through a motion for summary judgme nt; or (3) Janet and Mauc h have a n adequate re medy

by appea l in Michiga

n. “Whether a

clea r abuse o f d iscretion ca

n be ade quately

reme died by

appea l depends on a
car eful analy sis of costs and bene fits of interlocutory revie w.” In re M

cAllen Me dical Center, Inc

. , 275 S.W .3d 458, 464 (Tex. 2008)
. “As this balanc e depe nds heavily on circ umstances, it must be g uided by analy sis of principles rather than simple rules that treat case s as categ ories.” Id . “ Th e mos t fre quent use [the Texas Supreme Court] has m ade of mandamus relief i nvolves case s in which the04
- 09
- 00 30 3- CV

- 9- very act of p r o c e e d in g to tr ia l – r e g ar d le s s o f

th e o u tc o me –

w o u ld d e f e a t t h e s u b s ta n ti v e r ig ht involved.” Id . Si mil ar t o “ fo rc ingpa rt ie s to tr ia l in

a fo rum ot he r t ha n th e on e the y

c on tr a c tua lly selec ted,” fo rc i n g parties to try a wr ong ful death claim broug ht in Tex as by a law f irm which a Michig an cour

t previously

reje cted in appointing another law firm to pursue that c laim would defe at the substantive rig hts involved reg ardle ss of the outcome. Se e id .; se e als o Kee ne Cor p. v . Ca ldw e ll , 840 S.W .2d 715, 720-21 (Te x . App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] 1992, orig . proce eding ). C ONCL US I ON B e c a us e the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in de nying the mot ion to dis mis s a s to t he wr on g fu l de a th c la im br ou g ht b y

Che ry l on be ha lf of Ka y la , w e c on dit ion a lly

g ra nt t he wr it o f m and a mus . T he wr it w ill only issue if the trial cour

t fail s t o : (1 ) wi thdraw the order denying the motion to di smiss; and (2) sign a n order g ranting the motion to dis miss as to the claims broug ht on behalf of Kay la.
Phy lis J . Speedlin , J ustice