in Re Joyce Reece and Zachary Petitt, 01-21-00685-CV

Clarence Roy sued as next friend of Clarice A. Thomas alleging fraud, false imprisonment, conversion, theft, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy; he alleges Thomas is mentally impaired and was coerced into transferring property to relators Joyce Reece and Zachary Pettit.
Relators filed a plea to the jurisdiction on October 13, 2020 arguing Roy lacks standing as next friend because Thomas was never judicially declared incompetent; they set the plea for submission on October 26, 2020.
The trial court did not rule on the plea; relators repeatedly requested rulings (including filings in November 2020 and September 2021) and filed mandamus petitions seeking relief for the delay.
This Court previously denied an earlier mandamus petition in March 2021; relators filed the present petition in December 2021 after the trial court still had not ruled.
The Court of Appeals held that more than a reasonable time had passed (over 13 months from filing) and that the trial court abused its ministerial duty by failing to rule; it conditionally granted mandamus to compel the trial court to rule but refused to order dismissal itself.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on the plea to the jurisdiction	Roy: mandamus not warranted; trial court need not be compelled immediately	Relators: trial court had a ministerial duty to consider and rule; multiple requests were made and reasonable time has passed	Court: abused discretion; trial court must rule within 30 days
Whether relators lack an adequate remedy by appeal	Roy: an appeal could be adequate	Relators: appeal is inadequate because trial court’s refusal to rule denies relief and cannot be cured on appeal	Court: relators lack an adequate remedy by appeal in these circumstances
Whether this Court can order dismissal of Roy’s claims for lack of standing	Roy: opposes directing dismissal	Relators: seek dismissal without prejudice for want of subject-matter jurisdiction (lack of standing)	Court: denies that relief; appellate court cannot tell trial court what decision to make
Whether Roy has standing as next friend (merits of plea to jurisdiction)	Roy: asserts proper next-friend standing to pursue Thomas’s claims	Relators: Roy lacks standing because Thomas was never adjudicated incompetent by a probate court	Court: did not decide the merits of standing; only compelled the trial court to rule on the plea

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus standard: abuse of discretion and lack of adequate appellate remedy)
In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion definition and review principles)
In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001) (trial court has ministerial duty to consider and rule; mandamus may compel)
In re Layton, 257 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008) (ministerial duty to rule on properly filed motions)
In re Amir-Sharif, 357 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (no bright-line for what constitutes a reasonable time to rule)
In re Shredder Co., L.L.C., 225 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006) (appellate court may compel action but may not direct the trial court what decision to reach)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (framework for assessing whether an appellate remedy is adequate)
In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (reiterating that appellate courts cannot command a particular ruling on the merits)