Opinion
13-23-00475-CV
12-05-2023
IN RE SARAH ANN SHAW, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF SHAD CLINTON SHAW, DECEASED
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña
MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case."); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Relator Sarah Ann Shaw, individually, and as executrix of the estate of Shad Clinton Shaw, deceased, filed a petition for writ of mandamus through which she asserts that "[t]he trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to withdraw funds deposited [into] the registry of the court after the court had dismissed the entire case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."
Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135-36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus relief is also appropriate when a trial court issues an order "beyond its jurisdiction" because the order is void ab initio. In re Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by real party in interest Shonna Janel Simpson, as executor of the estate of Richard B. Shaw, relator's reply, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice.