in Re Ginger Light and James Justin Light, Relators, 07-21-00162-CV

Underlying judgment in favor of Thoma was entered Aug. 11, 2020 and affirmed on appeal; Thoma sought to collect via garnishment in Feb. 2021.
The Lights filed a motion to vacate the writ and later a motion for new trial; a hearing was held May 6, 2021.
At the May 6 hearing the trial court (according to conflicting accounts) granted Thoma attorney’s fees; a written order dated July 6, 2021 awarded Thoma $8,420.79 and authorized enforcement writs.
The Lights attempted to appeal the garnishment judgment but their appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee.
The Lights filed a mandamus petition challenging the fee award, but failed to include the Rule 52.3(j) certification and did not provide a transcript of the May 6 hearing.
The appellate court denied the mandamus petition without prejudice, citing the procedural omissions and the possibility that an appeal would have been an adequate remedy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus is appropriate to overturn the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees in the garnishment proceeding	Lights: trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees and mandamus is warranted	Thoma: relators failed to comply with appellate rules and may have an adequate remedy by appeal	Denied without prejudice for procedural defects (missing Rule 52.3(j) certification and transcript) and because adequacy of appellate remedy could not be assessed on the incomplete record
Whether the May 6 oral pronouncement constituted a final ruling	Lights: court orally granted fees on the record, making it a final ruling	Thoma/court: record is unclear; oral statements may have been an intent to rule and not a final judgment; written July 6 order may merely memorialize a prior oral ruling	Court found ambiguity; absence of the May 6 transcript prevented determination whether a final oral judgment was rendered
Whether failure to timely pursue appeal forecloses mandamus relief	Lights: they elected not to pursue the appeal	Thoma: failure to appeal is an adequate remedy at law, precluding mandamus	Court noted that failure to pursue an adequate remedy (appeal) can preclude mandamus, but could not conclusively apply that bar due to the incomplete record; denied without prejudice

In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus requires showing of trial-court abuse of discretion and lack of adequate remedy)
Woods v. Woods, 167 S.W.3d 932 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2005, no pet.) (oral announcement must evince a present decision to constitute a judgment)
Glassman v. Goodfriend, 347 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (garnishment is a separate proceeding from the underlying suit and may be appealed independently)
In re Pannell, 283 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, orig. proceeding) (failure to pursue an adequate legal remedy like appeal can preempt mandamus relief)
Dunn v. Dunn, 439 S.W.2d 830 (Tex. 1969) (oral judgments are valid and later entry of written judgment may be ministerial)