in Re: Kenneth L. Buholtz
05-16-01312-CV
| Tex. App. | Jan 31, 2017Background
- Kenneth L. Buholtz (relator) filed multiple motions in a suit affecting the parent–child relationship; many motions have been pending between nine months and three years.
- Relator previously filed three mandamus petitions; two were denied for record deficiencies and one denied because the new transferee court had not yet had a reasonable time to act.
- Relator provided a corrected, authenticated record in this fourth mandamus proceeding and notified the trial court repeatedly (letters, motions) that the motions remained undecided.
- The motions at issue include enforcement, contempt, correction/vacation of judgment, modification of child support, stay, appearance by telephone, and a motion to change venue.
- The trial court had a reasonable time to rule but had not issued written rulings; one recusal motion was found moot by virtue of transfer to a new court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court must rule on properly filed, pending motions | Buholtz: motions are properly filed, timely presented, and the court has had unreasonable delay; mandamus should compel rulings | Trial court: (implicit) claimed more time/authority issues due to transfer or other case circumstances | Court: A trial court has a ministerial duty to rule within a reasonable time; mandamus may compel rulings where relator shows delay and alerted the court |
| Whether relator satisfied burden to show court had notice of pending motions | Buholtz: he repeatedly notified the court (motions, correspondence, motion to transfer) | (Implicit) court had not been sufficiently alerted or needed more time after transfer | Held: Relator took reasonable steps to alert the court; burden satisfied |
| Whether motions waited an unreasonable time to be decided | Buholtz: most motions pending 9 months–3 years — unreasonable delay | Court/system: recent transfer might justify delay for some motions | Held: Trial court had reasonable time; delay was unreasonable for listed motions; mandamus warranted for those motions |
| Whether recusal motion remains viable after transfer | Buholtz: sought recusal of prior judge | Implicit: recusal motion still pending | Held: Recusal motion became moot after case transferred to the 469th Judicial District Court; mandamus denied as to that motion |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court has ministerial duty to rule on properly filed motions)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (relator bears burden to provide record establishing right to relief)
- Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (mandamus may compel judge to act when a properly filed motion has awaited an unreasonable time)
- In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (trial court has reasonable time to consider and rule; circumstances govern what is reasonable)