NO. 07-01-0204 -CV IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L A JUNE 1, 2 001

______________________________ IN RE W. HUGH HAR RELL, RE LATOR

_________________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
In this original proceeding, r el ator W . Hugh Harrell has filed a petition for writ of manda mus

asking us to order the Hono rable J. Blair Cherry, Judg e of the 72 nd District Court of Lubbock County , to grant his m otion filed in an underlyi ng lawsuit to distribute
cer tain funds held in the registry ofthe court that rep resent the 2/5th i nterest of his bro ther, Glenn Harrell, in a tru st e sta blish ed b y th e pa ren ts of re lato r an d Gle nn H arrell fo r th eir benefit. Relator cl aims entitlementto those funds bas ed on an assignm ent from Glenn Harrell to relator. For the reasons set forth below , the petition is denied.
Mandam us is an ex

traordinary

writ that should only be issued when the trial court clea rly abused its discretion, and there is no ade quate r emedy by appeal. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A party seeking m andam us2

relief must establish that he doe s not have an adequate rem edy by appeal. In re Bay A rea Citi zens Against Lawsuit Abuse , 982 S.W.2d 371, 374 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceedi ng) ; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 842. The court’s order denying relator’s m otion to distribute stated thatthe order was interl ocutory “si nce other m atters are still pending before the Court” and the funds were to rem ai n in the registry of the court “until further order of the Court .” Interlocu tory

rulings made by a trial court during the ordinary trial process m ay g ene rally be remed ied by appeal. In re Texas Dept. of Protective and Regulatory S er vic es , 990 S.W.2d 848, 850 (Tex.App.--Am arillo 1999) (ori g. proceeding).
The real party in interest, W iloma Harrell, independent executrix of th e estate of Glenn Har rell, has filed a brief in which she states it is her position that the as signment from Glenn Ha rr el l only assigned any causes of action he had against the trustee for transactions involving the trust and did not assign his interest in the trust to relator. The only docum ents before this court are the mot ion to distribute with the assignm ent attached and the court’s order regarding the sam e. The court’s order does not finally determine the rights of the parties to the funds in the registry of the court, but m erely maintains the stat us quo of the parti es. Both relator and W iloma Harrell agree tha t the case is set for trial on August 6, 2001. Relator

argues that

“the granting of this Petition for Wri t of Mandam us establishes judicial econom y and corrects a grievous and erroneous ruling that would only be before thisCourt of Appeals on an appeal.” A rem edy by appeal is not inadequ ate m ere ly3

because it in vo lv es more exp ense or delay. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 842. W hile relator argues tha t an app eal is not an a ppr opr iaterem edy

becaus e hisclaim is vitiated and/or
severe lycom promised by the tria l cou rt’ s or der , an ord inar

y ap pea l after atria l is inadequate, and that because of the nearness of the trial, it invol ves an urgent necess ity thatthe writ be granted, these are conclusory statement s and do n ot s pec ific ally info rmthis court why relator’s rights m ay not be protected by an appeal. Relator m ust establish the effective denial of a reasonable opportunity to develop the m erits of his case. Id. at 843. We do not believe relator has m et his burden to establish that he do es not have an appropriate remedy and is therefore entitled to m andam us relief. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of m andam us is denied.

Per Curiam Do not publish.