Opinion
NUMBER 13-18-00119-CV
02-28-2018
IN RE CRAIG G. CHANG
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Longoria, and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case," but when "denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
On February 28, 2018, relator Craig G. Chang filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief. By two issues, relator contends that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) awarding unconditional appellate attorney's fees in the amount of $15,000 to real party in interest Deanna Chang, and (2) granting temporary relief pending appeal to the real party "where the evidence supporting [the] award of temporary appellate attorney fees is legally insufficient." By motion for temporary relief, relator seeks to stay the enforcement of all awards of appellate attorney's fees referenced in the February 7, 2018 "Order on Motion for Temporary Orders Pending Appeal and Motion for Clarification of Property Distribution" pending resolution of this original proceeding.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought. In this regard, we note that relator has a pending appeal arising from these same trial court proceedings pending in this Court in our cause number 13-17-00709-CV. Accordingly, without ruling on the substantive matters raised in this original proceeding, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice. We likewise deny the motion for temporary relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
LETICIA HINOJOSA
Justice Delivered and filed the 28th day of February, 2018.