MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion by Justice MOSELEY.

The Court has before it relator's petition for writ of mandamus. Relator contends the trial judge erred in denying his motion for leave to amend his answer. The facts of this original proceeding are known to the parties so we do not recite them here in detail. Further, because all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion and order pursuant to Rule 52.8 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d). Based on the record before us, we agree that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion and that appellant has no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, we conditionally grant relator's petition for writ of mandamus.

In an earlier petition for writ of mandamus, relator argued that the trial court had erred in striking his second amended answer. This Court denied the petition, holding that Carpenter could not amend his answer without leave of court under the trial court's scheduling order. See In re Bob Carpenter, No. 05-08-00083-CV, 2008 WL 384569, Tex. App. -Dallas Feb. 14, 2008, orig. proceeding). Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court, which was denied. Thus, relator's operative pleading, as noted by this Court in our previous opinion, was his first amended answer as supplemented by paragraph 2.15 of the Second Amended Original Answer. See id. at *1 n. 3. Since that time, the trial date has been continued, and relator filed a motion for leave to file his third amended answer. The trial court denied the motion for leave to amend.

In our previous opinion, we concluded that "Carpenter may amend his pleadings `only after leave of the judge is obtained, which leave shall be granted by the judge unless there is a showing that the filing will operate as a surprise to the opposite party.'" Carpenter, 2008 WL 384569 at *2, quoting Tex. R. Civ. P. 63. Accordingly, we have reviewed Carpenter's proposed Third Amended Original Answer and compared it with his current operative pleading. There is nothing in that comparison, nor in the record before us, that would support a finding of surprise in the filing of the third amended answer.

In order to obtain mandamus relief, a party must show both that the trial court has abused its discretion and that the party has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). We have concluded as a matter of law that Carpenter was entitled to leave to file his third amended answer. "A clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion, and may result in appellate reversal by extraordinary writ." Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. Carpenter has thus met the first requirement.

A party has no adequate remedy on appeal "where the party's ability to present a viable claim or defense at trial is vitiated or severely compromised" by the trial court's error. Id. at 843. The denial of Carpenter's leave to amend will prevent him from asserting certain defenses at trial, and, if need be, on appeal. He has therefore met the second requirement to obtain mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we conditionally grant the relator's petition for writ of mandamus. A writ will issue only in the event the trial court fails to vacate its January 23, 2009 "Order Denying Defendant's Amended Verified Motion for Leave to File Defendant's Third Amended Original Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Verified Denials, and Inferential Rebuttals to Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Petition" and to enter an order allowing the proposed amendment.