In re Casterline, 476 S.W.3d 38

Relator Carolyn Casterline obtained a home equity loan in 2007 secured by her homestead; she defaulted and OneWest initiated multiple foreclosure attempts and prior litigation in federal court where OneWest won summary judgment.
OneWest filed a Rule 736 expedited application to foreclose; counsel scheduled a hearing for 1:30 p.m., but the court’s notice set the hearing at 9:00 a.m.; OneWest’s counsel missed the 9:00 a.m. hearing.
At 9:00 a.m. on October 14, 2013 the trial court denied OneWest’s Rule 736 application and dismissed the case; OneWest’s counsel appeared at 1:30 p.m. and later filed a "Motion to Reconsider and Reopen."
The trial court granted the motion, reopened the case, reset the hearing, and on November 25, 2013 granted OneWest’s application to foreclose.
Relator sought mandamus relief arguing the rehearing/reopen order violated Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.8(c) (which forbids motions for rehearing, new trial, bill of review, or appeal from Rule 736 orders) and that she had no adequate appellate remedy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting OneWest’s "Motion to Reconsider and Reopen" after denying the Rule 736 application	Casterline: The motion was in substance a motion for rehearing/new trial, which Rule 736.8(c) expressly forbids; thus reopening was prohibited	OneWest: Rule 736.8(c) does not limit the court’s plenary power to modify its own orders within 30 days; the court could reconsider due to a scheduling miscommunication	Held: The motion’s substance was a prohibited rehearing/new-trial attempt; the trial court abused its discretion in granting it under Rule 736.8(c)
Whether relator has an adequate remedy by appeal	Casterline: Rule 736.8(c) expressly precludes appeal and requires challenges to be made in a separate original proceeding; thus no adequate appellate remedy exists	OneWest: (argued generally that relief was not warranted and that relator merely delays foreclosure)	Held: Relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal because Rule 736.8(c) bars appeals of Rule 736 orders; mandamus relief is appropriate

Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2012) (rules of construction applied to procedural rules)
In re Frank Motor Co., 361 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. 2012) (mandamus proper to correct clear abuse when no adequate appellate remedy)
In re State, 355 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. 2011) (balancing benefits/detriments of mandamus and conserving resources)
In re Brookshire Grocery Co., 250 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. 2008) (determine nature of motion by substance, not title)
In re Christus Spohn Hosp. Kleberg, 222 S.W.3d 434 (Tex. 2007) (construction of procedural rules is a legal question reviewed de novo)
Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. 1999) (substance-over-form principle in characterizing motions)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (trial court has no discretion in applying the law; mandamus framework)