Faye Comte and Laura Severt v. Smith County Commissioners Court and Joel P. Baker, Cary Nix, Jeff Warr, Joann Hampton, and Terry Phillips, Each in His or Her Official Capacity as a Smith County Commissioner, 06-14-00086-CV

Background

Two court‑appointed family attorneys (Comte and Severt) sought payment from Smith County for ad litem services rendered in the 321st Judicial District Court after the county commissioners adopted a June 18, 2013 order limiting approval of non‑contract attorney fees for that court for FY2013.
The county auditor submitted letters to the commissioners indicating she had examined and approved invoices but that sufficient funding did not exist to pay them; attachments listed unpaid invoices but lacked origin or detail on services performed.
The attorneys filed a mandamus petition in the 241st District Court asking the trial court to vacate the commissioners’ order and compel payment; the trial court denied relief and entered a final judgment.
Attorneys argued (1) district courts have inherent and statutory authority to appoint attorneys ad litem and (2) payment for services became a ministerial duty of the commissioners once the district court ordered fees and the auditor approved invoices.
Commissioners argued budgetary and legislative discretion over county expenditures prevented mandamus; they characterized their order as a lawful exercise of budgetary control and not a refusal to allow appointments.
The court of appeals affirmed, finding the attorneys failed to meet their heavy burden to show no adequate legal remedy and that the commissioners abused discretion or had a purely ministerial duty to pay.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether commissioners had a ministerial duty to pay ad litem fees once court ordered fees and auditor approved invoices	Payment became ministerial after district court orders and auditor approval; commissioners had no discretion	Commissioners retained budgetary discretion; funding absence and budget policy left payment discretionary	Held: Not shown ministerial; attorneys failed to prove only step left was payment; mandamus denied
Whether commissioners’ June 18 order unlawfully interfered with the district court’s inherent authority to appoint counsel	District court’s inherent power to function requires appointment and funding; commissioners cannot thwart that by withholding funds	Order merely set budgetary policy and advised use of contract attorneys; did not prohibit appointments	Held: Attorneys did not prove the order voided district court power or crippled its function
Whether mandamus was appropriate (lack of adequate remedy and clear abuse)	Mandamus appropriate because no adequate legal remedy and clear abuse in refusing payment	Commissioners: appellants failed to negate discretionary grounds and alternative remedies existed	Held: Mandamus not warranted; appellants failed burden to show no adequate remedy and clear abuse
Whether claim‑presentation statutes/procedures were complied with prior to suit	Attorneys relied on auditor letters and filings to show presentation/approval	Commissioners noted attorneys did not present claims per Local Gov’t Code and did not notify commissioners prior to suit	Held: Record lacks evidence of required claim presentation; court did not need to resolve all statutory compliance issues because burden not met

Key Cases Cited

Alice Nat’l Bank v. Edwards, 408 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1966) (standards for reversing trial court denial of mandamus)
Anderson v. Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. 1991) (definition of ministerial act vs. discretionary act for mandamus)
Womack v. Berry, 291 S.W.2d 677 (Tex. 1956) (mandamus available for clear abuse of discretion)
Vondy v. Comm’rs Court of Uvalde Cnty., 620 S.W.2d 104 (Tex. 1981) (trial courts’ original mandamus jurisdiction over county officials)
Ector County v. Stringer, 843 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. 1992) (trial court may overturn commissioners’ order only for abuse of discretion)
In re S.W. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2007) (mandamus is extraordinary remedy)
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (interpretation of mandatory statutory language may render duty ministerial)
Pharo v. Chambers Cnty., 922 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. 1996) (judgment implies necessary fact findings when a party does not request findings of fact)