1 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont 

_________________ 

NO. 09-14-00321-CV 

_________________ 

IN RE TOM RICHARD DOYLE JR. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Original Proceeding 

________________________________________________________________________ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Tom Richard Doyle Jr. seeks mandamus relief compelling the judge of the 

County Court at Law of Liberty County, Texas to act on motions and pleadings 

relating to the probate of the estate of Doyle’s father. The real party in interest, 

Charles Richard Jarvis, filed a response, but he has not contested the accuracy of 

any of the documents that Doyle submitted with his petition. 

This is the second mandamus petition Doyle has filed with this Court. In a 

previous filing, we denied mandamus relief Doyle requested from the county judge 

because the judge transferred the contested matter to the county court at law. See In 

re Doyle, No. 09-13-00319-CV, 2013 WL 5276088, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 
2 

Sept. 19, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Doyle complains that the judge of the 

county court at law has refused to act on either his request for a temporary 

injunction or his claims against the administrator. 

The probate court granted letters of administration to the real party in 

interest Jarvis. Doyle is the sole beneficiary of the estate. Doyle filed an 

application for determination of heirship, a request for a temporary injunction, a 

formal complaint against the independent administrator for failing to provide an 

accounting or to distribute the estate, and an application to close the estate. See

Tex. Est. Code Ann. §§ 359.006, .101, .102, 361.051, .052, 362.051, .052 (West 

2014).1

 Doyle complains that after the case was transferred to the county court at 

law, he repeatedly requested a hearing but no hearing has been scheduled.2

 The 

real party in interest does not challenge Doyle’s claim that he submitted his 

requests to the trial court and that the trial court has neither ruled on Doyle’s 

motions nor set the case for trial. 

This Court cannot prescribe the manner in which the trial court exercises its 

discretion, but we may order a trial court to exercise its discretion in some manner. 

                                                             1

 Doyle cited to the former Probate Code, but the Texas Estates Code has 

come into effect since Doyle filed his pleadings. 

2

 Because he is incarcerated, a hearing would be telephonic unless the trial 

court grants the issuance of a bench warrant for Doyle’s personal appearance. 
3 

Cooke v. Millard, 854 S.W.2d 134, 135 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, 

orig. proceeding). We may compel a trial court to proceed to trial and judgment in 

a case. In re Tasby, 40 S.W.3d 190, 191 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, orig. 

proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to rule on pretrial 

motions that have been properly presented to it within a reasonable time. See 

Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 

1997, orig. proceeding). 

A trial court has broad discretion to manage its docket. In re Chavez, 62 

S.W.3d 225, 228-29 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Determining 

what time period is reasonable depends on the circumstances of the case. In re 

Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding); 

see also In re Smith, No. 07-13-00345-CV, 2013 WL 6909161, at *2 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo Dec. 17, 2013, orig. proceeding) (holding a three month delay in 

selecting a date to hear a motion that has been pending for eight months is 

unreasonable). In this case, Doyle alleges the administrator has failed to file the 

required reports and that further delay will increase the likelihood that the estate’s 

assets will be depleted. Jarvis does not controvert Doyle’s assertion that the case 

has not been set on a hearing or trial docket, notwithstanding Doyle’s repeated 

requests. 
4 

Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for a writ of mandamus and 

direct the trial court to set a hearing on Relator’s pending motions, rule on 

Relator’s pending motions, and schedule the case for final disposition. The writ 

shall issue only if the trial court fails to act promptly in accordance with this 

opinion. 

PETITION CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. 

 PER CURIAM 

Submitted on August 4, 2014 

Opinion Delivered September 18, 2014 

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.