Opinion
NO. 09-17-00111-CV
04-27-2017
IN RE MICHAEL DAVID BELLOW JR.
Original Proceeding 317th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. C-227 ,217
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Michael David Bellow Jr. contends the trial court abused its discretion by issuing temporary orders in a suit for modification of a child-custody order. A trial court may render temporary orders in a modification suit. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.006 (West Supp. 2016). However, if a particular order is not authorized, mandamus may offer an avenue allowing a temporary order to be challenged prior to the trial court's entering an appealable judgment. See In re Sanchez, 228 S.W.3d 214, 217 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, orig. proceeding) (temporary order changing the designation of the parent with the exclusive right to designate the child's primary residence without a determination of necessity).
This is the third time Bellow has filed a mandamus petition in this suit, and the arguments he presents in the petition now before us advance the same arguments that he previously presented in a prior petition for mandamus relief. In both petitions, Bellow challenged the trial court's jurisdiction over the suit filed by his ex-wife seeking to modify the terms of their divorce decree regarding matters concerning the custody of their minor child. See generally In re Bellow, No. 09-17-00042-CV, 2017 WL 1173813, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 30, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also In re Bellow, No. 09-17-00010-CV, 2017 WL 640828, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 16, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Additionally, Bellow informs the Court that he "will file for mandamus relief regarding the other flaws with the temporary orders at a later time if needed depending on the outcome of this mandamus, or in a separate mandamus."
Mandamus is not issued as a matter of right, but at the discretion of the court, and whether the writ should issue is largely controlled by equitable principles. Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding).
Mandamus review of incidental, interlocutory rulings by the trial courts unduly interferes with trial court proceedings, distracts appellate court attention to issues that are unimportant both to the ultimate disposition of the case at hand and to the uniform development of the law, and adds
unproductively to the expense and delay of civil litigation. Mandamus review of significant rulings in exceptional cases may be essential to preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss, allow the appellate courts to give needed and helpful direction to the law that would otherwise prove elusive in appeals from final judgments, and spare private parties and the public the time and money utterly wasted enduring eventual reversal of improperly conducted proceedings. An appellate remedy is "adequate" when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments. When the benefits outweigh the detriments, appellate courts must consider whether the appellate remedy is adequate.In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). Bellow is not entitled to carve his complaints about the trial court's temporary orders into a succession of separate original proceedings that require the court to address his complaints piecemeal. See id. Our March 30, 2017 opinion explained why the trial court had jurisdiction over the suit his ex-wife filed to modify the decree previously entered in the Bellows' divorce, and the explanation we provided in resolving that petition resolves the complaint that Bellow presents for the second time in this original proceeding. See Bellow, 2017 WL 1173813, at *1. Bellow's third petition seeking mandamus is denied.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM Submitted on April 26, 2017
Opinion Delivered April 27, 2017 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.