Court Opinion

ID: 9377952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 08:09:29.767614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:18.121539
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                               EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                    EL PASO, TEXAS

                                                 §

 IN RE: LOVING COUNTY APPRAISAL §                                No. 08-22-00243-CV
 DISTRICT
                                 §                         AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
                        Relator.
                                 §                                IN MANDAMUS

                                                 §

                                         OPINION

        Relator, Loving County Appraisal District (Loving CAD), filed a petition for a writ of

mandamus seeking relief from an order issued by Judge Rodney Satterwhite, Senior Judge of the

441st Judicial District Court of Midland County sitting on the 143rd District Court of Loving

County, denying its request for a temporary injunction. For the reasons set forth below, we deny

the petition.

                                           BACKGROUND

        Loving CAD alleges in its petition that it filed a lawsuit against Ysidro Renteria, both

individually and in his capacity as a member of the Loving County Commissioner’s Court, seeking

a declaratory judgment that he is not qualified to be a member of Loving CAD board because he

is not a resident of Loving County. It also named the other members of the Loving County
Commissioner’s Court in their official capacities and asked the trial court for a writ of mandamus

directing the Commissioner’s Court to nominate a replacement board member in Renteria’s place.

The Commissioner’s Court, which apparently has complete control over who sits on the Loving

CAD board, sought to recall and replace all of the board members who supported the lawsuit. In

response, Loving CAD filed an application for a temporary injunction to prevent the

Commissioner’s Court from recalling any of the board members. After a hearing, the trial court

denied the application for a temporary injunction. This petition for a writ of mandamus followed.

                                               DISCUSSION

       “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when a relator can show that the

trial court clearly abused its discretion, and no adequate appellate remedy exists.” In re J.A.L., 645

S.W.3d 922, 924 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, orig. proceeding). “An appellate court rarely

interferes with a trial court’s exercise of discretion.” In re Limon, 130 S.W.3d 158, 159 (Tex.

App.—El Paso 2003, orig. proceeding). To receive mandamus relief, the relator bears the burden

of proving both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that it has no adequate remedy

on appeal. In re J.A.L., 645 S.W.3d at 924. Part of this burden includes providing this Court with

a record sufficient to establish a right to relief. In re Williams, No. 08-22-00051-CV, 2022 WL

1210574, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso April 25, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing Walker

v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992)). The record must include “a certified or sworn copy

of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any

underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(A)(1). Relator must also provide “a properly

authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any

exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the

matter complained.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(B).

                                                  2
       Loving CAD has not provided the Court with a record sufficient to establish its claim for

relief. While it provided the trial court’s order denying its application for a temporary injunction,

it did not provide the underlying petition, its application for a temporary injunction, or the

defendants’ opposition to the application. Further, the petition filed with the Court establishes that

the trial court held a hearing on the application for a temporary injunction on November 21, 2022.

But Loving CAD did not include a transcript of the hearing, admitted exhibits, or a statement that

no testimony was taken related to its application for a temporary injunction. Due to the insufficient

mandamus record, we are unable to determine whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion

in denying Loving CAD’s application for a temporary injunction. See In re Williams, 2022 WL

1210574, at *1. As a result, we must deny Loving CAD’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

                                              CONCLUSION

       For the mentioned reasons, we deny Loving CAD’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

                                               LISA J. SOTO, Justice

March 2, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

                                                  3