I n this proce eding , Pease also filed “A ppellant’s Notice of Violation of Automatic Stay by 1 the L ee County

District Clerk and the Texas A ttorney Gene ral” and “A ppellant’s Emer g ency

Motion and Notice of C onstitut ional Crisis and Request to Set Aside a Void Orde r.” Pea se fur ther ha s filed interlocutory

appea ls f rom cause number 12,380 in the 21st D istrict Court of L ee County that wer e dismiss ed for

lack of jurisdiction. See P ease v. Texas Att’y G en. , No. 03-07-00432- CV, slip op. at 1 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin Marc h 20 , 20 08 , no pe t. h .) (m e m. o p. ); Pease v . Texas Att’y G en ., No. 03-07- 00704-CV, slip op

. at 1 (Tex. App.—Austin J an. 8, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.). On F ebrua ry 12, 2008, Pease f

iled an additional notice of interlocutory

ap p ea l wi th this C ourt appe aling an orde r de nyingc ha

ng e of ve nu e , a n o rd e r r e g a rd ingc a shbo nd , a nd a n o rd e r f

or c a pia s. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 093 -CV

In re Rhett

Webster P ease

ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M LEE COUNTY

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N

On Fe bruar

y 13, 2008, relator Rhett W ebster Pea se filed a n “Emer g ency

Motion and No tic e of Con sti tut ion a l Cr isi s and

Re qu e st f or Re lie f i n th e fo rm of a Wri t of Ma nd a mus a nd

a Wri t of Prohibition.” The Of

fice of t he Attorney Gene ral of T exas filed a re sponse on Marc h 24, 2008. 1 For the re asons that follow, we deny relator’s eme rg ency

motion and his petiti on s ee k ing w rits of mandamus and pr ohibition.

“In mand at o ry venue ma ndamus ac tions, we look only to whether

the trial cour

t clea rly abused its di scre tion in ruling upon the motion.” In re Applied Chem . Magnesias Corp. , 20 6 S. W.3 d 1 14 , 1 17 (T e x. 20 06 ); W alker v . Pack

er , 827 S.W .2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1 9 92). “AtrialRelator attempted to file on F ebrua ry 21, 2007, a docume nt titl ed “A pology to the Court 2 a nd Not ice of

I na bil ity to P a y .” Th e dis tr ic t c le rk mark e d th e do c ume nt “ re c e ive d” a pp a re ntl y be c a us e re la tor

ha d b e e n a dju dg e d a

ve xati ou s li tig a nt a

nd pr oh ibi te d fr om f

ili ngc ourt

do c ume nts without the permission of t he presiding administ rative judge

. Since t hen, however, relator ha s filed numerous plea dings with the t rial court including an answer, countercla im and jury demand, motion to disqualify , motion for temporar y order s pending appea l, and seve ral notice s of re moval to fede ral c ourt

. 2 court c lear ly

abuses its discre tion if ‘ it reac hes a de cision so arbitrar y and unre asonable as to amount to a clea r and pr ejudicial er

ror of law.’” W

alker , 827 S.W .2d at 839 (c itation o mitted). A writ of pr oh ibi tio n is su e s to pr ote c t the su bje c t matt e r of a n ap pe a l or to p ro hib it unla wf ul i nte rf e re nc e wi th the enforce ment of a superior court’s judgments or orders. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a) (We st 2 00 4) ; Ho llo way

v . F ift h Co ur t of

Ap pe als , 767 S.W .2d 680, 682-83 (Te x . 1989). I n 2003, relator was divorc ed fr om his wife J anell Pease , and re lator wa s order ed to pay $443.75 per month in c hild support. He a ppeale d the divorce decr ee, a nd this Court affirmed the judg ment. Se e Pe as e v . P e as e , No. 03-03-00644- C V, 2 0 0 4 T ex . App. L EXI S 8258, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.). I n 2005, the Attorney Gene ral filed a

motion for enfor ceme nt of relator’s child support obligations, a nd the trial court signed an o rd er enfor cing relator’s oblig ations and re nderingan ar rea rag e judg ment of $6,156.23 ag ainst rel at o r. The orde r

a lso fo un d r e la tor

in c on te mpt

fo r f ail ur e to p a y

the c ourt -o rd e re d s up po rt and or de re d h im committed to the county

jail for 180 day s. Relator did not appea l this order. I n 2006, t h e Attorney

Gene ral filed a

nother motion for e nforc ement of r elator’ s ch i l d s u p p o rt o b l i gat i o n s . R el at o r wa s s er v ed o n J an u ary 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 , an d fi l ed n u m er o u s p l ea d i n gs including a motion to transfe r venue on J uly 10, 2007. Af

te r a he a ri ng on Se pte mbe r 20, 20 07 , in 2 which re lator did not ap pear , the trial cour t denied re lator’s motion to transfer venue. T here afte r,Re la tor a lso ra ise s nume ro us oth e r c omp la int s, inc lud ingtha t th is m a tte r w a s r e mov e d to 3 fede ral c ourt. This Court has addre ssed most of these complaints in one of his other a ppeals. In any e ve nt, we ne e d no t a dd

re ss the se a dd iti on a l iss ue s be c a us e re la tor ha s wa ive d the se c omp la int s by failing to provide authority and re cord suppor

t for his contentions. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(h); In re Ro ge rs , 4 3 S. W.3 d 2 0, 26 (Tex. App .— Am a ri llo 20 01 , o ri g . p ro c e e din g ) ( c on te nti on s in mandamus wa ived by

failure to cite authority

). 3 afte r a he aringin J anuar

y 2008 on the motion for enfor ceme nt, the trial court or dere d the issuance of a c apias, a

uthorizi ng the ar

rest of relator and providing his r elea se upon the posting of a cash bond in the amount of $2,800. Relator’ s commence ment of this orig inal proce eding followed.

I n this procee ding, r elator c ontends that the trial cour t abused its discretion in d e ny ing relator’s motion to transfer venue, that the trial court is interf eringwith this C ourt’s jurisdiction, and that he has no a dequate reme dy by appea l. Relator contends that the Attorney Gene ral a

nd the trial

c ourt a re vio la tin g a n “ a

uto ma tic sta

y ” be c a us e of his a pp e a l to thi s Co ur

t. Relator also c ontends 3 that the 2003 final divorc e dec ree “is void and has a lway s been void.”

As to the deni al o f relator’s motion to transfer ve nue, under the family

code, in a suit to enforce an orde r that is filed in the cour t of continuing , ex cl u s i v e j u ri s diction, on a par ty ’s timely motion, a court must transfe r the sui t t o an o t h er county if the childre n have r esided in the other c ounty

for six m onths or longe r. Tex. F am. Code Ann. § 155.201(b) (West Supp. 2007). For a motion t o b e t i mely , it must be filed by the first Monday

afte r the twe ntieth day

afte r ser vice of citation or not ice of suit or before the commenc ement of the hear ing, w hicheve r date is sooner. Id . § 15 5. 20 4( b) (We st Su pp . 2 00 7) . Re la tor

wa s se rv e d w iththe mot io n for e nf or c e me nt i n J anuar y 2007, setting the deadline f or filing his moti on to transfe r venue in Febr uary 2007. Relator did not f ile his motion until Jul y 2007, five months later. B eca use re lator’s motion to transfer venueRe la tor c on te nd s th a t he wa s p reve nt ed fro m f ili nghis mot ion

to t ra ns fe r v e nu e tim e ly 4 beca use the c lerk would not file his pl eading s. Acc ording to the di strict cler k’s t estimony , relator was a llowed to file d o cu ments with the district clerk a fter obta ining pe rmission from the chief administrative j udg e. Relator does not contend that he sought permission from the administ rative judge at any

time prior to filing his motion to transfe r venue or that he attempted to f ile during the w i n d o w o f

t i m e t h a tw o u l d

h a v e m a d e h i s m o t i o n t i m e l y.

4 was untimely , the trial court did not have a mandatory duty to g rant the motion. Relator a lso did not appea r for the hea ring on the motion. We conclude that the t rial court did not abuse its discretion in denying r elator’ s venue motion. 4

Relator also c ontends that the trial court is interfe ring with this C ourt’s jurisdiction be c a us e his a pp e a l to thi s Co ur

t aut omatic a lly sta

y e d the e nf

or c e me nt p ro c e e din g in t

he tr ia l c ourt

. Under the family code, howeve r, an appe al does not suspend a n order unless the appe llate cour t or the court that rende red the order suspends the orde r. Id . § 109.002(c) (West 2002). Be cause neither the trial cour

t nor this Court has suspended any order pen d i n g appea l, relator’ s appea l has not

re s u l t edi n t h e s u s p en s i o n o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’s o rd er o r t h e e n fo rc em en tp ro ce ed i n g. Fi n al ly , as to relator’s conte ntion that the 2003 divorce de cre e is void, appellant

unsucce ssfully

appea led from the divor ce de cre e, raising the issue that the dec ree should be rende red void. Se e Pe as e , 2004 Tex. App. L EXI S 8258, at *1- 4. He, there fore , had an adequate re medy by appea l, prec luding manda mus relief in this proce eding

. Pack er , 827 S.W .2d at 839. Relator’s motion for e merg ency relief and petition for wr its of mandamus and prohibition are de nied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a)

.5 __________________________________________ Jan P

. P atter son, Justice B efor e Justices P atter son, P ur year and H enson F iled: April 3, 2008