Opinion
No. 14-04-00369-CV.
Memorandum Opinion filed May 13, 2004.
Original Proceeding Writ of Mandamus.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices FROST and GUZMAN.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 21, 2004, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See TEX. GOV'T. CODE ANN. § 22.221 (Vernon Supp. 2004); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52. In her petition, relator seeks to have this Court compel the Honorable John Donovan, presiding judge of the 61st District Court, to vacate his Order Setting Aside Order to Disburse Excess Proceeds signed on December 19, 2003.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only when a trial court clearly abuses its discretion, either in resolving factual issues or in determining legal principles, and there is no other adequate remedy by appeal. In re Kuntz, 124 S.W.3d 179, 180 (Tex. 2003) Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992). In determining whether there has been a clear abuse of discretion justifying mandamus relief, the reviewing court must consider whether the trial court's ruling was arbitrary, unreasonable, or reached without reference to any guiding rules or principles, amounting to a clear and prejudicial error of law. Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917-18 (Tex. 1985). When alleging that a trial court abused its discretion in its resolution of factual issues, the party must show the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision. Id. at 918. As to the determination of legal principles, an abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court clearly fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
The trial court's order signed May 21, 2003, was not a final order because it failed to dispose of all claims. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.2d 191, 206 (Tex. 2001). We therefore hold that the trial court had jurisdiction to sign its December 19, 2003 order. We find relator failed to make the requisite showing that the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.