Court Opinion

ID: 9947134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 18:13:18.385858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:48.186878
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00574-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                                   IN RE ALDO R. SANTOS

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

  Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina
          Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1

        By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Aldo R. Santos contends that the trial

court abused its discretion by determining that a premarital agreement was

unconscionable and that “mandamus relief [is] warranted to avoid expensive and

pointless litigation over issues controlled by the [premarital agreement].”

        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.
47.4 (distinguishing 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 by 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).

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

the response filed by real party in interest Marlene Rico Villanueva, relator’s reply, 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
28th day of February, 2024.

                                             2