Court Opinion

ID: 9908564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-09 18:10:14.605321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:15.526434
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00475-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

  IN RE SARAH ANN SHAW, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS EXECUTRIX OF
         THE ESTATE OF SHAD CLINTON SHAW, DECEASED

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña
                 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1

        Relator Sarah Ann Shaw, individually, and as executrix of the estate of Shad

Clinton Shaw, deceased, filed a petition for writ of mandamus through which she asserts

that “[t]he trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to withdraw funds

deposited [into] the registry of the court after the court had dismissed the entire case for

        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).
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

       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). Mandamus relief is also appropriate when a trial

court issues an order “beyond its jurisdiction” because the order is void ab initio. In re

Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting

In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)).

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

the response filed by real party in interest Shonna Janel Simpson, as executor of the

estate of Richard B. Shaw, relator’s reply, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that

relator has not met her burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ

of mandamus without prejudice.

                                                               L. ARON PEÑA JR.
                                                               Justice

Delivered and filed on the
5th day of December, 2023.

                                            2