In re Cook, 356 S.W.3d 493

This is a divorce action between Barbara and Jeffrey Cook, involving an in-court contract enforcement claim.
Barbara sought to enforce the agreement and the case proceeded to trial on whether Jeffrey had mental capacity to form the contract.
After a jury verdict in Jeffrey's favor, Barbara moved for a new trial on six grounds, including evidentiary and jury issues and justice concerns.
The trial court granted Barbara's new-trial motion without stating reasons; Jeffrey sought mandamus relief challenging the lack of articulated grounds.
During the mandamus proceedings, the trial court entered an amended order granting a new trial 'based on all grounds in the motion'; the judge later resigned and a successor was appointed.
The successor judge issued an order stating the original judge's orders should remain unchanged, without providing independent reasons; the mandamus petition proceeded to this Court seeking a remedy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the successor court’s failure to provide independent reasons violated Columbia	Jeffrey argues successor must articulate independent reasons under Columbia.	Cook contends the order reaffirming the prior grant suffices, given procedural posture.	No; failure to provide independent reasons constitutes abuse of discretion requiring mandamus relief.
Whether the successor judge’s order constitutes a grant of a new trial warranting reasons	Jeffrey contends the reaffirmation effectively set aside the verdict and required grounds.	Cook argues the order reflects continuation of prior ruling without new grounds being specified.	Yes; reaffirming the prior order is effectively granting a new-trial motion and requires independent stated reasons.

In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2009) (failure to state reasons for setting aside verdict and granting new trial is abuse of discretion)
In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 289 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. 2009) (mandamus limits on reviewing a successor judge; grounds for new trial must be articulated)
In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 280 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2008) (Baylor I: mandamus not issued against a former judge for what a former judge did)
State v. Olsen, 360 S.W.2d 402 (Tex. 1962) (mandamus against a successor judge requires refusal to grant the relief sought)
In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas (repeated citation for context), 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2009) (controlling authority for reasons requirement on successor judge)