in Re: Amy E. Davis
05-15-00888-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 30, 2015Background
- After a 2008 judgment and sanctions order against Amy E. Davis, both the judgment and the sanctions order were appealed.
- In May 2012 the parties (plaintiff and defendants) jointly moved the trial court to vacate the sanctions order.
- Relator (Davis) filed an apparently unopposed petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court to (a) order the trial court to rule on the motion to vacate or (b) grant the motion to vacate the sanctions order.
- The Court explained the mandamus standard: relator must show clear abuse of discretion and lack of adequate appellate remedy.
- The Court held it lacked authority to grant the requested relief because (1) the trial court properly concluded it lacked plenary power to vacate the sanctions order and (2) the court of appeals’ plenary power to alter its prior judgments on these appeals had expired, and the Texas Supreme Court’s remand revived plenary power only for the limited issues specified in the mandate.
- The petition for writ of mandamus was denied; the Court noted relator could move in the sanctions-order appeal to suspend enforcement of that judgment but did not seek that relief here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court must rule on the joint motion to vacate the sanctions order | Trial court should be ordered to rule on or grant the unopposed motion | Trial court lacks authority/plenary power to act on the motion | Denied — trial court correctly concluded it lacked plenary power to grant relief and therefore properly declined to act |
| Whether this Court may grant the joint motion to vacate the sanctions order itself | Court of appeals can vacate the sanctions order upon relator's mandamus | Opposing view: appellate plenary power has expired or is limited by mandate | Denied — appellate plenary power over the sanctions appeal expired; court cannot grant vacatur now |
| Whether the remand from the Texas Supreme Court revived plenary power to address the sanctions order | Relator contends the remand permits broader relief including vacating sanctions | Respondents: remand revives limited plenary power only to address issues specified by the Supreme Court | Denied — remand revived plenary power only for issues in the supreme court’s mandate (breach-of-fiduciary-duty/valuation/buyout), not the sanctions order |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate relief here | Mandamus should be issued because trial court’s inaction is reviewable and harms relator | Mandamus not appropriate because relator has or lacks needed showing and other appellate remedies exist | Denied — relator did not meet mandamus standard given lack of trial-court/plenary authority and available appellate procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus requires clear abuse of discretion and inadequate appellate remedy)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (trial court has no discretion in determining or applying the law)
- Ritchie v. Rupe, 443 S.W.3d 856 (Tex. 2014) (supreme court opinion limiting remand to specified issues)
- Bramlett v. Phillips, 359 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012) (mandate construed to vest limited authority to comply with supreme court opinion)
- Bramlett v. Phillips, 407 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. 2013) (affirming scope-of-mandate principles)
- Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Aircraft Network, LLC, 345 S.W.3d 139 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (appellate court cannot act beyond scope of mandate)
- Davis v. Rupe, 307 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (prior appeal affirming sanctions order)