Summary
dismissing mandamus petition after parties settled underlying case "even if they [had] not fully implemented their settlement agreement"
Summary of this case from In re TimarOpinion
NO. 14-16-00754-CV
04-12-2018
IN RE FORREST LOCKE AND SHERRI LEYENDECKER, Relators
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Probate Court No. 3 Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 432,609
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 22, 2016, relators Forrest Locke and Sheri Leyendecker filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this court to compel the Honorable Rory R. Olsen, presiding judge of Probate Court No. 3 of Harris County, to set aside his (1) August 23, 2016 oral order denying relators' motion to terminate the receivership; and (2) August 23, 2016 written order granting the applicant's motion to give bond in the receivership. Relators also filed a motion to stay the trial court proceedings.
On September 29, 2016, the relators and the real party in interest, the independent executor, filed a joint motion for an agreed order of a one-week abatement. The parties advised the court that they had mediated the case and executed a Rule 11 Agreement to seek a one-week abatement to allow the parties to continue to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. On September 30, 2016, we granted the joint motion to abate, abated this case until October 6, 2016, and directed the parties to advise this court of the status of the case at that time.
On October 6, 2016, the parties advised this court that they were still attempting to settle the case, and requested that the abatement be continued through October 14, 2016. We granted the parties' request on October 10, 2016, and directed the parties to advise the court of the status of the case at that time.
On October 14, 2016, the parties filed another motion to extend the abatement through October 28, 2016, in order to continue settlement negotiations. We granted the parties' motion, but continued the abatement for thirty days from the date of our October 20, 2016 order, and directed the parties to advise the court of the status of the case at that time.
On November 21, 2016, the parties informed the court by letter that they agreed to continue the abatement of this case pending performance of their mediated settlement. On December 1, 2016, we continued the abatement of the case until such time as when the parties advised the court that they had performed their mediated settlement. We further directed the parties to provide the court an update regarding the status of the case every thirty days from the date of our December 1, 2016 order.
On January 3, 2017, the parties advised the court that they had obtained the necessary orders from the trial court "to perform pursuant to their mediated settlement agreement and are currently implementing said agreement. The parties agree that the abatement should continue to allow the parties to continue their performance." The parties have continued to provide the court with updates regarding the status of the settlement. The parties, in their most recent update, dated April 5, 2018, and is identical to their first update, dated January 3, 2017, advised that they had obtained the necessary orders from the trial court "to perform pursuant to their mediated settlement agreement and are currently implementing said agreement. The parties agree that the abatement should continue to allow the parties to continue their performance."
The parties have settled the underlying case, even if they have not fully implemented their settlement agreement. Therefore, relators' request for relief is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss relators' petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to refiling if necessary. We also deny as moot relators' motion to stay the trial court proceedings.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Busby, and Wise.