Court Opinion

ID: 9404746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-24 19:11:03.857904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:16.849700
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00104-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

               IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF JIMMY D. JANSKY,
                      AN INCAPACITATED PERSON

                     On appeal from the 24th District Court
                          of Jackson County, Texas.

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
                  Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña
                  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

       Appellants Joan B. Jansky and Lonnie D. Jansky appealed from an order

appointing appellee Nicole Barrett the guardian of the proposed ward. Subsequently,

appellants filed a petition for writ of mandamus in our Court arguing that the trial court

lacked jurisdiction to appoint Barrett as J.D.J.’s guardian. In re Joan B. Jansky and Lonnie

D. Jansky, No. 13-23-00157-CV, 2023 WL 3749343, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–

Edinburg May 31, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). We agreed with appellants and

conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to
vacate its guardianship order, and any following orders, as void.1 See id. at *4.

       On June 7, 2023, appellants filed a motion to dismiss this appeal stating that it is

now moot because the order appointing Barrett as J.D.J.’s guardian has been ordered

vacated by this Court’s mandamus order. See Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs. v.

N.J., 644 S.W.3d 189, 192 (Tex. 2022) (“A case is moot when a justiciable controversy

no longer exists between the parties or when the parties no longer have a legally

cognizable interest in the outcome.”). We agree with appellants that this cause is now

moot. See id.; Klein v. Hernandez, 315 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex. 2010) (“Appellate courts are

prohibited from deciding moot controversies because the separation-of-powers article

prohibits advisory opinions on abstract questions of law.”).

       The Court, having considered the documents on file and the motion to dismiss the

appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a).

The motion is granted. We hereby dismiss this appeal. Costs will be taxed against

appellants. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) (“Absent agreement of the parties, the court will

tax costs against the appellant.”). Having dismissed the appeal at appellants’ request, no

motion for rehearing will be entertained.

                                                                                JAIME TIJERINA
                                                                                Justice

Delivered and filed on the
22nd day of June, 2023.

       1 Our memorandum opinion conditionally granting the appellants’ petition for writ of mandamus has
a more detailed description of the underlying facts. See In re Joan B. Jansky and Lonnie D. Jansky, No.
13-23-00157-CV, 2023 WL 3749343, at *1–3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg May 31, 2023, no pet.
h.) (mem. op.).

                                                   2