Court Opinion

ID: 9915727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-07 09:13:41.269037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:13:47.277246
License: Public Domain

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted and Memorandum
Opinion filed January 4, 2024.

                                     In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-23-00760-CV

               IN RE CAILYN AERIAL ANDERSON, Relator

                         ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
                           WRIT OF MANDAMUS
                              245th District Court
                             Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. 2018-85958

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On Thursday, October 19, 2023, relator Cailyn Aerial Anderson filed a
petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221;
see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the
Honorable Angela M. Lancelin, presiding judge of the 245th District Court of
Harris County, to (1) vacate an order denying a motion to transfer venue from
Harris County to Brazoria County and (2) transfer the suit to Brazoria County. We
conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus.

                                BACKGROUND

      Relator Cailyn Anderson (“Mother”) and Real-Party-In-Interest Christopher
Wolman (“Father”) are parents to a five-year-old girl, C.A. Mother and Father
entered a mediated settlement agreement in April of 2020, which established
custody of C.A. The mediated settlement agreement appointed Mother and Father
as joint managing conservators. It gave Mother the exclusive right to designate the
primary residence for C.A. It specified that the residence must be within Harris
County, Texas or counties contiguous to Harris County, Texas. The trial court
entered a final judgment on an order for a suit affecting the parent child
relationship integrating this agreement in November of 2020.

      Father filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship on August 21,
2023. Mother was not served the petition and accompanying citation until August
31, 2023. Mother filed an answer and motion to transfer venue from Harris County
to Brazoria County on September. 19, 2023. Father filed an affidavit contravening
the motion to transfer on September 25, 2023. The same day, a notice of hearing
on the motion to transfer was docketed.

      On October 13, 2023, the trial court denied the motion to transfer venue. The
court noted its reasoning on the docket sheet:

                                          2
      Counsel for R appeared, Movant appeared Pro Se. Motion to Transfer
      denied as R ( per testimony of Atty) resided in Brazoria County at the
      time of the original order was signed and has not moved. Underlying
      order provided for Harris and Contiguous.

                               STANDARD OF REVIEW

      Generally, to obtain mandamus relief, the relator must show that the trial
court clearly abused its discretion, and the relator has no adequate remedy by
appeal. In re Nabors, 276 S.W.3d 190, 193 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2009, orig. proceeding). However, “‘[a]n erroneous denial of a mandatory venue
transfer is subject to mandamus relief without a showing of an inadequate remedy
by appeal.’” In re Lovell-Osburn, 448 S.W.3d 616, 618 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding). (quoting In re Compton, 185 S.W.3d 526, 527
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding).

      Therefore, a party needs to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial
court to be entitled to mandamus relief. Id. at 619. A trial court abuses its
discretion if it: (1) reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to constitute
a clear and prejudicial error of law; (2) clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply
the law; or (3) acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Id.

      A trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or applying the
law to facts. Nabors, 276 S.W.3d at 193. The transfer of a suit affecting the child-
parent relationship to a county where the child has resided for more than six
                                           3
months is a mandatory ministerial duty. Id. Therefore, a writ of mandamus is
available to compel the mandatory transfer of a suit affecting the parent-child
relationship. Id. As the party seeking relief, the relator bears the burden of
demonstrating entitlement to mandamus relief. Lovell-Osburn, 448 S.W.3d at 619.

                                       ANALYSIS

      Mother argues the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the motion
to transfer venue from Harris County to Brazoria County because C.A. had lived in
Brazoria County for six months. She filed a mandamus asking this court to compel
the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to transfer venue and transfer
the suit to Brazoria County. This court requested a response from Father to
Mother’s writ of mandamus. On December 12, 2023, Father responded that he was
“withdrawing his opposition to the mandatory transfer in the above cause.”

                                         VENUE

      If an action to modify or enforce an order is filed with the court having
continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of a suit, then on the timely motion of a party,
the court shall transfer the proceeding to the county in which the child has resided
for six months or longer. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 155.201(b); In re Compton, 185
S.W.3d 526, 527 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding). Texas
courts have long held that section 155.201(b) is a mandatory venue provision, and,
consequently, a trial court has a ministerial duty to transfer venue when the
statutory terms are satisfied. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 155.201(b); Lovell-Osburn,
448 S.W.3d at 620.

                                          4
      Thus, there are two elements required to trigger a mandatory venue transfer
under Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 155.201(b). First, the party must demonstrate the
child has resided in the county they seek to transfer the case to, for six months.
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 155.201(b). Second, the motion must be timely. Tex. Fam.
Code Ann. § 155.201(b).

      If a suit to modify or a motion to enforce an order is filed in the court
      having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of a suit, on the timely
      motion of a party the court shall, within the time required by Section
      155.204, transfer the proceeding to another county in this state if the
      child has resided in the other county for six months or longer. Tex.
      Fam. Code Ann. §155.201(b)
We examine both requirements in turn:
      Residency requirement To satisfy the first statutory requirement of
section155.201(b), a party must demonstrate the child has resided in the county to
which she seeks the transfer for six months. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 155.201(b).
To determine which county the child has resided, “the court may not require that
the period of residence be continuous and uninterrupted but shall look to the child's
principal residence during the six-month period preceding the commencement of
the suit.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 155.203; Nabors, 276 S.W.3d at 196-99.

      Here, Mother has demonstrated that C.A. has lived in Brazoria County for
the six months preceding the start of the suit, filed on August 21, 2023, through a
lease agreement that showed Mother lived in Brazoria County between May of
2020 and September of 2023. Further, the trial court determined during the
October 13 hearing on the venue transfer that Mother lived in Brazoria County at

                                          5
the time the original order in the suit affecting the parent-child relationship was
signed and had not moved. Thus, Mother meets the first statutory requirement for a
mandatory venue transfer from Harris County to Brazoria County under section
155.201(b), because she has demonstrated C.A. has lived in Brazoria County for
six months preceding the commencement of the suit.

      But to trigger a mandatory venue transfer under section 155.201(b) Mother
must also meet the second statutory requirement for a mandatory transfer, and
show her motion was timely.

      Timely motion Such a motion to transfer (by a party other than a petitioner
or movant) is timely if made on or before the first Monday after the 20th day after
the date of service of citation or notice of the suit (the “answer date”) or before the
commencement of the hearing, whichever is sooner. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §
155.204(b); In re Compton, 185 S.W.3d 526, 527-28 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding).

      Here, Mother is the non-moving party becauseFather filed the petition to
modify the parent-child relationship. She was served with the citation of the suit to
modify the parent-child relationship on August 31. She filed her motion to transfer
on September 19. Thus, she timely filed the motion to transfer because September
19 is before the first Monday after the 20th day after the service of citation..
Mother met the second statutory requirement of a mandatory venue transfer
because her motion was filed timely.

                                           6
      We conclude that, grounds for a mandatory transfer existed, as: (1) Mother
showed C.A. lived in Brazoria County for the six months preceding the August
2023 suit to modify and (2) Mother’s motion was timely. Thus, the motion to
transfer venue is mandatory because Mother met the statutory requirements of Tex.
Fam. Code Ann. § 155.201(b). We conditionally grant the petition for writ of
mandamus. We direct the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to
transfer and to transfer the suit to Brazoria County. Our writ of mandamus will
only issue if the trial court fails to comply.

                                         PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant.

                                            7