in Re: John Jeffrey McCafferty, 05-15-01345-CV

Relator John Jeffrey McCafferty filed a mandamus petition asking the court to vacate the trial court’s October 15, 2015 Order appointing a receiver in a divorce-related enforcement proceeding.
Relator contended the receiver order was impermissible because it was based on a December 18, 2013 Interim Order on Petition for Enforcement that allegedly altered the divorce property division beyond the trial court’s authority.
The trial court appointed the receiver to effectuate enforcement of the property division required by the divorce decree.
The Court of Appeals declined to decide whether the December 2013 interim order exceeded the trial court’s authority, finding that appointment of a receiver to effectuate a divorce property division is within the court’s broad discretion.
The court also declined to reach relator’s sufficiency-of-evidence challenge because an interlocutory appeal of a receiver appointment is available and mandamus is not a substitute for appeal.
The court denied the petition for writ of mandamus, noting the interlocutory appeal deadline had run but that a timely motion for extension remained possible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court lacked authority to appoint a receiver because the appointment rested on a prior interim order that altered the property division	McCafferty: receiver order is invalid because it is based on the December 18, 2013 Interim Order that exceeded the court’s authority	Trial court: has broad discretion to appoint a receiver to effectuate and enforce the divorce property division; the interim order is immaterial	Court did not decide excess-authority claim on merits; held appointment of a receiver is within trial court’s broad discretion and the interim order does not bar appointment
Whether evidence was insufficient to permit appointment of a receiver and whether mandamus is the proper remedy	McCafferty: evidence before the trial court was insufficient to appoint a receiver	Respondents: interlocutory appeal is available to review receiver appointment; mandamus is inappropriate when adequate appellate remedy exists	Court declined to reach the sufficiency question and denied mandamus because interlocutory appeal provides an adequate remedy

In re C.F.M., 360 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.) (trial court has broad discretion to effectuate property division by appointing a receiver)
Young v. Young, 765 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, no writ) (recognizing receiver appointment authority in family law property enforcement)
In re Bernson, 254 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding) (mandamus is not a substitute for appeal)
In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus appropriate only when appeal is inadequate)
Pat Walker & Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 623 S.W.2d 306 (Tex. 1981) (party with available appeal ordinarily cannot obtain mandamus)
In re Pannell, 283 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, orig. proceeding) (same principle regarding mandamus vs. appeal)
In re Tex. Dept. of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2006) (relief by mandamus requires lack of adequate appellate remedy)
In re Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 445 S.W.3d 216 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, orig. proceeding) (discussing adequacy of appeal versus mandamus relief)