in Re Joshua Epps, Relator
07-14-00420-CV
| Tex. App. | Jan 14, 2015Background
- Relator Joshua Epps seeks rehearing under Tex. R. App. P. 52.9 of the Amarillo Court of Appeals' December 31, 2014 mandamus opinion.
- Proceeding arises from a previous district court order entered in 2014 (February 2014) concerning Epps' mandamus petition and related matters in Lubbock County.
- Epps previously challenged the district court’s order as void, arguing lack of jurisdiction and standing defects.
- The Court of Appeals sua sponte denied Epps’ second mandamus petition, treating delay (laches) as a barrier to review.
- Epps contends that laches does not bar review when the basis for relief is voidness of a final order and collateral attack is appropriate.
- Relator requests conditional mandamus relief and other just relief, with counsel signatures and certificate of compliance attached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laches bars mandamus review of a void order | Epps argues laches is inapplicable when challenging void orders. | Respondent asserts delay in pursuing original proceeding justifies laches. | Laches not applicable to void-order challenges |
| Whether a void district-court order can be attacked without time limits | Voidness permits collateral attack with no time limit. | Time limits govern petitions but not voidness challenges per cited authorities. | Void orders are subject to collateral attack without time bar |
| Whether the February 2014 order is void for lack of jurisdiction | Challenging jurisdictional defects renders the order void. | Opinion treats merits adjudication as ongoing, not voiding the order. | Relator argues the order is void due to lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. 2010) (voidness basis permits collateral attack without time limit)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ballestas, 355 S.W.3d 187 (Tex. App.–Houston [1 Dist.] 2011) (voidness challenges not time-barred)
- Zimmerman v. Ottis, 941 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.App.–Corpus Christi 1996) (mandamus relief premised on void order; laches not to be used to ignore voidness)
- Royal Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Ragsdale, 273 S.W.3d 759 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (waiver considerations for voidness claims in final judgments)