in Re Dana Kay Abney, 13-16-00495-CV

Relator Dana Kay Abney filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking findings that she received actual notice or knowledge of a judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a.
The petition was filed alongside an appeal pending in this Court (cause no. 13-16-00412-CV).
This Court previously abated and remanded because the trial court’s initial order conflicted, lacked a date, and failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.2(c).
On remand the trial court issued a revised order denying Abney’s Rule 306a motion, finding Abney (through counsel) had notice when the court announced at a May 11, 2016 hearing that a temporary injunction would be granted and that the plaintiff’s form would be signed.
The trial court further found that the announced ruling and timetable imposed a duty to inquire and obtain a copy of the order.
The Court concluded mandamus relief was unnecessary because the denial of the Rule 306a motion can be reviewed on appeal, and therefore denied the petition for writ of mandamus.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court must make findings that relator lacked actual notice/knowledge under Rule 306a	Abney argued she did not receive actual notice/knowledge and sought findings in her favor under Rule 306a	Trial court found Abney had notice when the court announced grant of the temporary injunction and the timing for signing the order, creating a duty to inquire	Denied mandamus; trial court’s denial of Rule 306a motion can be reviewed on appeal
Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel favorable Rule 306a findings	Abney asserted mandamus was needed because trial court’s order was erroneous or inadequate	Respondent argued appellate review is adequate and mandamus unnecessary	Mandamus denied; appellate remedy adequate given pending appeal

In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus standards; abuse of discretion)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus prerequisites and appellate adequacy)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standards for mandamus review)
Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2012) (abuse of discretion defined)
In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 226 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. 2007) (failure to correctly apply law as abuse of discretion)
In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. 2014) (balancing benefits and detriments when assessing appellate adequacy)
In re J.S., 392 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013) (Rule 306a denial reviewable on appeal)
Texaco, Inc. v. Phan, 137 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (Rule 306a denial reviewable on appeal)
Welborn Mortgage Corp. v. Knowles, 851 S.W.2d 328 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993) (Rule 306a denial reviewable on appeal)
Hot Shot Messenger Serv. v. State, 798 S.W.2d 413 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990) (Rule 306a denial reviewable on appeal)