Background

• Bayview Loan Servicing obtained a signed judgment in a forcible-detainer action on January 5, 2017, against real party Carol Paselk, who appealed without filing a supersedeas bond.
• Bayview asked the County Clerk of Hopkins County for a writ of possession; the clerk refused to issue it.
• Bayview filed a mandamus application in the Texarkana Court of Appeals seeking an order requiring the County Court at Law No. 1, Hopkins County, to compel the county clerk to issue the writ of possession.
• The application identified the respondent as the County Court at Law No. 1, but Bayview served and appended orders signed by Judge Robert Newsome, who is the judge of the constitutional County Court (not County Court at Law No. 1).
• The Court concluded Bayview’s petition, on its face, sought relief against the judge of the County Court at Law No. 1 (a statutory county court judge), and that the court of appeals lacks mandamus jurisdiction over statutory county court judges except to enforce its own jurisdiction.
• Because the petition named a statutory county court judge as respondent and the court could not issue a writ against a party not named, the court dismissed the mandamus petition for want of jurisdiction.

Issues

-> Issue: Whether the court of appeals has mandamus jurisdiction over a County Court at Law judge -> Plaintiff's Argument: Bayview sought writ compelling County Court at Law No. 1 to order clerk to issue writ of possession -> Defendant's Argument: (implicit) The court of appeals lacks authority to issue mandamus to a statutory county court judge; relief against wrong judge cannot be granted -> Held: Court lacks jurisdiction to issue mandamus against a County Court at Law judge and dismissed the petition

-> Issue: Whether the court could treat the petition as seeking relief against the constitutional County Court judge (Judge Newsome) -> Plaintiff's Argument: Application included orders signed by Judge Newsome (suggesting relief could relate to him) -> Defendant's Argument: Mandamus cannot be issued against a different party than named; petition must be taken on its face -> Held: Court must treat the petition as against the named County Court at Law judge and cannot grant relief against Judge Newsome who was not the named respondent

Key Cases Cited

• In re Meyer, 482 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016) (explaining limits on courts of appeals mandamus jurisdiction over statutory county court judges)
• Halbert v. Terrell, 112 S.W. 1036 (Tex. 1908) (appellate court cannot adjudicate rights of parties not made parties to the suit)
• In re Sewell, 472 S.W.3d 449 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015) (prior Texarkana mandamus decision involving county court at law)
• In re Ingram, 433 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014) (prior Texarkana mandamus decision involving county court at law)
• In re Estate of Velvin, 398 S.W.3d 426 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013) (prior Texarkana mandamus decision involving county court at law)