NUMBER 13-15-00162-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE RONALD G. HOLE AND CHERYL D. HOLE
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relators, Ronald G. Hole and Cheryl D. Hole, filed a petition for writ of mandamus
in the above cause on April 2, 2015. Relators seek to compel the trial court to withdraw
its order denying relators’ “Plea to the Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss, and Motion for
Realignment of Parties” and to dismiss the declaratory judgment action filed by the real
party in interest, Prosperity Bank. Relators further request that we remand this case to
the trial court for further proceedings.
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
1
Mandamus is an extreme remedy, and to be entitled to such relief, a petitioner
must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no
adequate remedy by appeal. In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas Subsidiary, L.P.,
290 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding); In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275
S.W.3d 458 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d
124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing
both prerequisites to mandamus relief. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003)
(orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision that is so arbitrary
and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails
to analyze the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. In re Cerberus Capital
Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v.
Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The adequacy of an
appellate remedy must be determined by balancing the benefits of mandamus review
against the detriments. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig.
proceeding). Because this balance depends heavily on circumstances, it must be guided
by the analysis of principles rather than the application of simple rules that treat cases as
categories. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d at 464. We evaluate the benefits
and detriments of mandamus review and consider whether mandamus will preserve
important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss. In re Prudential Ins.
Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the response, the reply, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not
2
met their burden to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of
mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
29th day of April, 2015.
3