X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The relator, Aaron Douglas Rowe, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to set aside its temporary orders and abate divorce proceedings initiated by his wife. HOLDING:Denied. Because Texas Family Code �6.301 requires a petitioner to establish residency before filing suit, as opposed to before receiving a divorce, the mere fact that time will pass during the pendency of this proceeding does not deprive relator of the opportunity to appeal the trial court’s decision to deny his plea in abatement. Under the plain language of the statute, residency must be established as of the date the suit is filed. The relator can effectively raise this issue on appeal. Therefore, the application of �6.301 alone does not deprive him of an adequate remedy at law. The court considers whether, as a general proposition, the appeal of a venue ruling provides relator with an adequate remedy at law. A wrongful venue determination is not subject to harmless error analysis and by statute is reversible error. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code �15.064(b). Allowing a trial to go forward, even though potentially reversible error has been committed, puts at risk the resources of the parties and the trial court. Nonetheless, the court states, the Texas Supreme Court has consistently held that reversible error alone is insufficient to warrant mandamus relief, Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 308 n.11 (Tex. 1994); and that venue decisions in two-party suits, except for suits affecting the parent-child relationship, are incidental trial rulings correctable by appeal. The Texas Legislature responded to the Supreme Court’s refusal to review venue decisions by mandamus with Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code �15.0642. This statute authorizes parties to seek mandamus to enforce the mandatory venue provisions of Chapter 15. The Legislature’s response was a limited one. Only mandatory venue provisions created by Chapter 15 were afforded mandamus review. The court presumes that the Legislature otherwise agreed with the supreme court that mandamus was inappropriate for venue rulings. The court concludes that an appeal of a venue ruling provides relator with an adequate remedy at law. Therefore, the court concludes, mandamus is not available to review the trial court’s venue determination. OPINION:Strange, J.; Wright, C.J., and McCall, J., and Strange, J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.