Court Opinion

ID: 9411581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 07:08:39.995783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:44:54.034788
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                                EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                     EL PASO, TEXAS

 IN RE: VERONICA CHAVEZ VARA,                     §                No. 08-23-00185-CV

                               Relator.           §          AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

                                                  §                  IN MANDAMUS

                                                  §

                                                  §

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Relator, Veronica Chavez Vara, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the

Honorable Judge Phyllis Gonzalez, Associate Judge of the 388th District Court of El Paso, County,

Texas. By her petition, Vara seeks to vacate an Order Confirming Support Arrearage signed and

entered by the trial court on October 14, 2022.

       To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that the trial court committed

a clear abuse of discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Nationwide

Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of

Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both requirements.

See In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam);
Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. Except in unusual circumstances that are not applicable here,

mandamus relief is not ordinarily available after a final judgment has been issued because relator

has an adequate remedy by direct appeal. See In re Esparza, No. 14-16-00748-CV, 2016 WL

5947445, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 13, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam);

In re Energy Transfer Fuel, L.P., 298 S.W.3d 348, 351 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2009, orig. proceeding).

“A judgment containing orders for future child support obligations must be appealed in the same

manner as any other final judgment.” In re of T.G., No. 03-02-00090-CV, 2002 WL 31769031, at

*5 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 12, 2002, no pet.); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 101.023 (“Order”

means “a decree,” “a judgment,” or “a final order unless [such is] identified as a temporary order

or the context clearly requires a different meaning.”).

       After reviewing the mandamus petition and record, we conclude that Vara has failed to

show that she is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus.

                                              GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

July 26, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

                                                 2