in Re: Heaven Sent Floor Care, 05-15-01152-CV

Background

Ken Albrecht (d/b/a Heaven Sent Floor Care) lost in justice court and filed a notice of appeal plus a statement of inability to pay costs under the justice-court rules.
The justice of the peace denied the statement the same day, without a contest by the opposing party and without conducting a hearing. Albrecht did not appeal that denial within seven days.
Instead, Albrecht requested findings of fact and conclusions of law from the justice court; the justice court did not (and was not required to) respond under the small‑claims rules.
Months later Albrecht filed a mandamus petition in the county court at law seeking relief from the justice court’s denial; the county court dismissed the mandamus petition under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a following a hearing.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding Albrecht had an adequate remedy by timely appeal from the denial of his statement of inability to pay and thus was not entitled to mandamus.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus was appropriate to review the justice court's denial of the statement of inability to pay	Albrecht argued the justice of the peace abused discretion by denying the statement without the Rule 502.3(d) hearing and that mandamus was necessary because he had no adequate appellate remedy	Appellee argued Albrecht had an adequate remedy by immediate appeal under Rule 506.1(d)(3) and thus mandamus was not available	Court held mandamus unavailable because an adequate remedy by appeal existed and was not pursued
Whether denial without a hearing rendered the order void or justified mandamus	Albrecht contended the lack of hearing made the denial reviewable by mandamus	Appellee relied on precedent that procedural errors do not render judgments void and that appeal is the proper remedy	Court held failure to hold the optional hearing was error but did not make the order void or eliminate the appellate remedy
Whether requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law tolled or extended the appeal deadline	Albrecht argued his request for findings justified delay in filing an appeal	Appellee argued Rule 296 findings do not apply to justice‑court small claims proceedings and do not extend the appeal period	Court held Rule 296 does not apply in justice court small claims appeals; the request did not extend the appeal period
Whether a denial without a contest counts as a "sustained contest" permitting immediate appeal under Rule 506.1(d)(3)	Albrecht implied denial without contest left him without the Rule 506.1(d)(3) appellate route	Appellee argued the judge’s examination/denial under Rule 502.3(d) is treated as a sustained contest because Rule 506.1(d) incorporates Rule 502.3(d)	Court held a judge’s ruling denying a statement (even without a filed contest) is treated as sustaining a contest for purposes of the immediate appeal provision in Rule 506.1(d)(3)

Key Cases Cited

Meridien Hotels, Inc. v. LHO Fin. P’ship I, L.P., 97 S.W.3d 731 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (statutory county courts have mandamus jurisdiction over justice courts)
Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. 1991) (distinguishing mandamus filed in trial court from original appellate mandamus proceedings)
Dallas/Fort Worth Int’l Airport Bd. v. Cox, 261 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (mandamus initiated in trial court treated as civil action subject to ordinary procedural rules)
In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus requires clear abuse of discretion and lack of adequate appellate remedy)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standards for mandamus review)
State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484 (Tex. 1995) (failure to follow procedural requirements does not render a judgment void)
Hill v. Hill, 460 S.W.3d 751 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015) (same: procedural defects do not necessarily void judgments)
In re Bernson, 254 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008) (mandamus is not a substitute for appeal)