in Re: the Estate of Linda J. Velvin, 398 S.W.3d 426

Demond filed a petition for writ of prohibition and mandamus directed at Bowie County probate judges in the ongoing probate case The Estate of Linda J. Velvin, Deceased.
Demond seeks to stop contempt Findings until resolution of an attempted appeal and to bar closing the estate until his attorney’s fees claim is reviewed on appeal.
The petition may also be read as seeking relief from sanctions, removal of counsel, and reappointment of a personal representative.
The court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition to protect its jurisdiction and to prevent unlawful interference with a superior court’s orders.
Mandamus relief requires a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by law; adequacy of remedy on appeal is balanced case-by-case.
Demond did not supply a certified or sworn record or proper appendix; the petition lacked the required record and explanation under Rule 52.3, so relief could not be granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is mandamus available where there is an adequate appellate remedy?	Demond argues mandamus is appropriate to protect appeal rights.	Respondents contend there is an adequate remedy by appeal and mandamus is inappropriate.	denied; no mandamus because adequate remedy by appeal exists.
Did Demond provide a record justifying mandamus relief?	Demond submitted claims with relief requests supported by record.	Demond failed to provide a sworn copy of motions or an appendix as required.	petition denied for failure to supply a proper record.
Should the writ of prohibition bar contempt findings or estate actions pending appeal?	Demond seeks to prevent contempt findings and estate closure pending review.	Respondents argue no basis to halt proceedings or closures without proper record.	relief not granted; petition denied on the presented record.

Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680 (Tex. 1989) (writs of prohibition protect appellate jurisdiction)
Sivley v. Sivley, 972 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1998) (orig. proceeding; limitations on mandamus relief)
In re Castle Tex. Prod. Ltd. P’ship, 189 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006) (orig. proceeding; mandamus considerations)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus standard requiring clear abuse of discretion)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (adequate remedy by appeal balancing test)
In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006) (record requirements for mandamus relief)
Nolan v. Bettis, 577 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1979) (judicial notice and records cautions in appellate review)