As a result, the notice must be served on the proposed ward before a hearing is held on an application for temporary guardianship and before a temporary guardian is appointed. In re Mask, 198 S.W.3d 231, 234 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, orig. proceeding). Although In re Mask concerned a predecessor statute, that statute contained the same language as section 1251.005.

"Mandamus relief also is appropriate when a court issues an order beyond its jurisdiction—a void order." In re Mask, 198 S.W.3d 231, 233 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Dickason, 987 S.W.2d 570, 571 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding)).

"When the trial court's order is void, mandamus relief is available regardless of whether there is an adequate remedy by appeal." In re Mask, 198 S.W.3d 231, 233 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2006, orig. proceeding) (citations omitted).

However, if the complained-of order is void, the relator does not have to show a lack of an adequate appellate remedy for mandamus relief to be appropriate. See In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Mask, 198 S.W.3d 231, 233 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2006, orig. proceeding). "A judgment is void only when it is apparent that the court rendering judgment 'had no jurisdiction of the parties, no jurisdiction of the subject matter, no jurisdiction to enter the judgment, or no capacity to act as a court.'" Cook v. Cameron, 733 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex. 1987) (citation omitted).

A judgment or order is void when it is apparent that the court rendering it lacked jurisdiction of either the parties or the subject matter of the lawsuit. See In re Mask, 198 S.W.3d 231, 235 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2006, orig. proceeding); In re Bokeloh, 21 S.W.3d 784, 794 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist] 2000, orig. proceeding). For a trial court to have jurisdiction over a party, the party must be properly before the court in the pending controversy as authorized by procedural statutes and rules.

A judgment or order is void when it is apparent that the court rendering it lacked jurisdiction of either the parties or the subject matter of the lawsuit. See In re Mask, 198 S.W.3d 231, 235 (Tex.App. 2006, orig. proceeding); In re Bokeloh, 21 S.W.3d 784, 794 (Tex.App. 2000, orig. proceeding). For a trial court to have jurisdiction over a party, the party must be properly before the court in the pending controversy as authorized by procedural statutes and rules.

For a trial court to have jurisdiction over a party, the party must be properly before the court in the pending controversy as authorized by procedural statutes and rules. In re Mask, 198 S.W.3d 231, 234 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2006, orig. proceeding). "In no case shall judgment be rendered against any defendant unless upon service, or acceptance or waiver of process, or upon an appearance."

in the pending controversy as authorized by procedural statutes and rules. In re Mask, 198 S.W.3d 231, 234 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2006, orig. proceeding) ( citing Perry v. Ponder, 604 S.W.2d 306, 322 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1980, no writ). Generally, a trial court does not have jurisdiction to enter a judgment or order against a respondent unless the record shows proper service of citation on the respondent, or an appearance by the respondent, or a written memorandum of waiver at the time the judgment or order was entered. In re Mask, 198 S.W.3d at 234.

A judgment or order is void when it is apparent that the court rendering it lacked jurisdiction over the parties. In re Mask, 198 S.W.3d 231, 234 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2006, orig. proceeding). "The power of a court to appoint a guardian is a special power conferred by statute and compliance with the statute is a condition precedent to the valid exercise of that power and is jurisdictional."

Mandamus relief is also appropriate when a court issues a void order. In re Mask, 198 S.W.3d 231, 233-34 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2006 (orig. proceeding). Further, when a trial court's order is void, mandamus relief is available regardless of whether a relator possesses an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding); In re Florey, 329 S.W.3d 854, 857 (Tex. App.-Eastland 2010, orig. proceeding).