in Re: Carlos Demond Williams
12-21-00133-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 15, 2021Background:
- Carlos Demond Williams filed an original petition for divorce on March 9, 2021.
- Around June 30 he mailed interrogatories, a motion for default judgment, a proposed final decree, and a letter asking the court to place the matter on the docket, claiming the divorce was uncontested.
- Williams alleged Respondent had not made a final disposition and filed this mandamus petition on August 13, 2021 seeking an order to compel a ruling.
- The petition initially named Judge Pam Fletcher, but the divorce file shows it was in the 3rd District Court of Anderson County; the Court identified Judge Mark Calhoon as the proper respondent.
- The Court denied mandamus because Williams failed to prove the trial court had been asked to act or otherwise had notice (no proof of the letters' receipt, no docket sheet or other evidence that the judge had been presented the motions).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandamus to compel final disposition | Williams: documents were filed/mailed; judge should enter final decree in uncontested divorce | Respondent: relator failed to show the judge had been asked to act or received the filings; clerk’s filing doesn't prove the judge knew | Denied — relator failed to show trial court was called to its attention; no entitlement to mandamus |
| Proper respondent | Williams named Judge Pam Fletcher | Record shows case filed in 3rd District Court (Anderson County) under Judge Mark Calhoon | Court corrected the Respondent to Judge Mark Calhoon |
| Adequacy of remedy by appeal / mandamus standard | Williams sought mandamus because no ruling had been made | Mandamus requires no adequate appellate remedy and clear abuse; relator must show duty, request, and refusal | Court applied the mandamus standard but denied because relator did not establish the prerequisite that the trial court was presented with the request |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2005) (mandamus requires no adequate appellate remedy and a clear abuse of discretion)
- In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001) (mandamus requires proof trial court had a duty, was asked to act, and refused)
- In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (trial court not required to rule on matters not brought to its attention; clerk’s knowledge is not imputed to the judge)