in Re: UpCurve Energy Partners, LLC, 08-21-00053-CV

Underlying suit: trespass to try title over an undivided one-half interest in land conveyed by a 1981 quitclaim deed; a 2017 recorded instrument attempted to add right-of-survivorship language.
Parties stipulated the only disputed issues are (1) whether a right of survivorship exists; and (2) whether the grantees’ interests are separate or community property.
Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment (Mar–Apr 2020); the motions were heard May 22, 2020; the court indicated a ruling would issue before the August 2020 trial setting.
Despite repeated requests (emails, filed letters, proposed judgments) and confirmation from the court administrator that the matters were submitted to the judge, no ruling issued for over 13 months after the hearing.
Relator UpCurve sought mandamus relief to compel the trial court to rule; Real Parties in Interest do not oppose relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had a ministerial duty to rule on properly filed motions	Properly filed summary-judgment motions require a ruling; duty is non-discretionary	Court management is discretionary generally, but ruling on pending motions is ministerial	Court: duty exists; ruling on properly filed motion is ministerial
Whether the trial court was asked to rule	Parties requested a ruling at the hearing and repeatedly thereafter	Implicit scheduling/docket constraints and multi-county duties may justify delay	Court: parties sufficiently requested rulings; court aware of motions
Whether the failure to rule constituted a refusal within a reasonable time	13+ months post-hearing is unreasonably long given limited legal issues	Docket pressures, multi-county travel, and COVID-related delays may explain slowness	Court: under totality of circumstances, 13+ months was an unreasonable delay and amounted to refusal
Whether mandamus relief should issue and what remedy	Seek writ compelling rulings within a set time (30 days)	Court should be afforded discretion to manage docket; remedy not automatic	Court: conditionally grant mandamus; direct trial judge to rule within 30 days; writ will issue only on noncompliance

In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (mandamus appropriate to correct clear abuse or compel ministerial duty)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard for correcting trial-court errors)
In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2005) (relator bears burden to show entitlement to mandamus)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standards for mandamus review and relator’s burden)
O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94 (Tex. 1992) (three-part test to obtain mandamus to compel action)
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. 1992) (trial court must rule on properly filed motions within a reasonable time)
In re Shredder Co., 225 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006) (mandamus may issue for unreasonable delay in ruling)
In re Mesa Petroleum Partners, LP, 538 S.W.3d 153 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017) (totality of circumstances governs what is a reasonable time to rule)