Court Opinion

ID: 9404728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-24 19:10:48.914275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:16.654557
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00220-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                           IN RE CHRISTOPHER M. VICKERS

                            On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña
            Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1

        In this original proceeding, relator Christopher M. Vickers asserts that the trial court

abused its discretion by refusing to grant a mandatory transfer of venue under the Texas

Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 103.001(a), (c), 155.201(b), (d), 155.204(b),

(c), (d).

         1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.1 (“The court of appeals must hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that
addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal.”); id. R. 47.4 (explaining the
differences between opinions and memorandum opinions).
       Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that: (1) the trial

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus is available to compel the mandatory

transfer of venue in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship because a trial court that

improperly refuses its ministerial duty to transfer has abused its discretion. Proffer v.

Yates, 734 S.W.2d 671, 673 (Tex. 1987) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Venegas,

595 S.W.3d 341, 344 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2020, orig. proceeding).

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the response filed by the real party in interest, and the applicable law, is of the opinion

that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously

imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. We deny the petition for writ of

mandamus.

                                                                 DORI CONTRERAS
                                                                 Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the
23rd day of June, 2023.

                                                 2