Court Opinion

ID: 9901640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 07:09:24.020014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:36.206899
License: Public Domain

CONDITIONALLY GRANT and Opinion Filed November 17, 2023

                                    S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-01102-CV

                    IN RE ELIZA JASSO GARCIA, Relator

          Original Proceeding from the 302nd Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. DF-22-03471

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
             Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Garcia
                             Opinion by Justice Garcia
      In this original proceeding, Relator contends the trial court failed to hear a

timely-filed appeal of a ruling by the associate judge on temporary orders.

      On May 16, 2023, an associate judge held a hearing under the family code

relating to temporary orders and issued a ruling. Relator filed a timely notice of

appeal of the associate judge’s ruling the same day. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §

201.015(a). Three days later, Real Party in Interest filed a timely counter appeal.

      Relator’s attorney had advised the court by a properly filed vacation letter that

he would be out of the country from May 17, 2023, until June 21, 2023, and

requested that no pre-trials, trials, hearings, motions, depositions, or other matters

be scheduled during, or three days before or after those dates.
       On June 1, the trial court notified the attorney for Real Party in Interest that

an appeal conference was scheduled for June 15, 2023, at which both parties were

expected to appear. Real Party in Interest informed the court that Relator had a

vacation letter on file.

       When Relator returned to the country, Real Party in Interest’s attorney

informed him that she had appeared at the June 15 conference and informed the court

that Relator was out of town. The court did not set a hearing for the appeals, but

instead instructed the parties to appear on July 24, 2023 for a pretrial hearing.

       The parties appeared for the pretrial hearing and requested a hearing for the

appeals on the temporary orders. The court refused to set a hearing and set the case

for final trial on November 29, 2023.

       In an Order on De Novo Appeal dated August 11, 2023, the court stated that

[relator’s] “Denovo [sic] Appeal had been over ruled [sic] by the operation of law.”

Relator filed a motion for rehearing and to reconsider and subsequently, an amended

motion.

       Family code section 201.015 prescribes an appeal to a referring court. See

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 201.015. Section 201.015(b) states: “An appeal to the

referring court must be in writing specifying the findings and conclusions of the

associate judge to which the party objects. The appeal is limited to the specified

findings and conclusions.” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN § 201.015(b). In addition, family

code section 201.015(f) states: “The referring court, after notice to the parties, shall

                                          –2–
hold a hearing on all appeals not later than the 30th day after the date on which the

initial appeal was filed with the referring court.” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN § 201.015(f).

      A party who timely appeals under section 201.015 is entitled to a hearing de

novo before the referring court. Fountain v. Knebel, 45 S.W.3d 736, 739 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.). Section 201.015 requires the referring court to hold a

hearing on the appeal within thirty days. Id. The thirty-day provision affords a party

the right to compel the referring court to hear the case promptly. Id. Once a party

has filed a notice of appeal to the referring court, the party has completed the

prerequisites necessary to be entitled to a de novo hearing. Id.

      Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring the relator to show that (1)

the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and (2) there is no adequate appellate

remedy. In re Copart, Inc., 619 S.W.3d 710, 713 (Tex. 2021) (per curiam) (orig.

proceeding) (citing In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex.

2004) (orig. proceeding)). Mandamus review is available where a trial court fails to

hold a timely requested de novo hearing. See In re Johnson, No. 05-22-00486-CV,

2022 WL 17335691, at*6 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 30, 2022, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op.); In re Jones, No. 05–07–00879–CV, 2007 WL 2258517, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Aug. 8, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Talley, No. 07-15-

00198-CV, 2015 WL 3856400, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 22, 2015, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.).

                                          –3–
      The referring court’s failure to hold a de novo hearing after a request is timely

filed is presumed harmful. Talley, 2015 WL 3856400, at *2 (citing Phagan v.

Aleman, 29 S.W.3d 632, 635 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (op. on

reh’g), and Att’y Gen. of Tex. v. Orr, 989 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999,

no pet.)). Mandamus is available because such failure constitutes a clear abuse of

discretion and remedy by appeal is inadequate to protect this time-designated right.

Id. (citing In re Jones, 2007 WL 2258517, at *1). Accordingly, we conditionally

grant Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. A writ will issue only in the event

trial judge fails to hold a hearing in compliance with family code section 201.015.

                                           /Dennise Garcia/
                                           DENNISE GARCIA
                                           JUSTICE
231102F.P05

                                         –4–