Court Opinion

ID: 9378933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 10:07:13.742276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:27.076791
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                       NO. 03-23-00124-CV

                                    In re Travis Price Dorsett

                      ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Relator Travis Price Dorsett filed a suit in Travis County seeking to divorce real

party in interest, his wife Laura Elizabeth Dorsett, and effected service on Laura. Weeks later,

Laura filed a suit in Bexar County seeking to divorce Travis and filed in Travis County a plea in

abatement and motion to dismiss Travis’s suit asserting that venue for the divorce proceeding

should be in Bexar County rather than Travis County because neither party satisfied the

residency requirements that would permit the suit to be in Travis County. See Tex. Fam.

Code § 6.301. After a hearing, the trial court granted Laura’s motion in part and abated the case

until further order. Following that ruling, Travis filed his petition for writ of mandamus asking

this Court to direct the trial court to vacate its order and conclude that venue was proper in Travis

County. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. After reviewing the petition and

the accompanying record, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3,

.7, .8 (setting out requirements for obtaining mandamus relief and requiring court to deny

petition if court determines that relator is not entitled to relief sought); In re Prudential Ins. Co.

of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (explaining that to be entitled to mandamus relief
relator must show both that trial court abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate

remedy by appeal); see also In re Green, 385 S.W.3d 665, 669 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012,

orig. proceeding) (explaining that requirements of domicile and residence under section 6.301

are fact issues for trial court to determine); In re Rowe, 182 S.W.3d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—

Eastland 2005, orig. proceeding) (noting that residency must be established as of date lawsuit

is filed).

                                           __________________________________________
                                           Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Kelly, and Smith

Filed: March 10, 2023

                                              2