Opinion
13-23-00104-CV
06-22-2023
IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF JIMMY D. JANSKY, AN INCAPACITATED PERSON
On appeal from the 24th District Court of Jackson County, Texas.
Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JAIME TIJERINA JUSTICE
Appellants Joan B. Jansky and Lonnie D. Jansky appealed from an order appointing appellee Nicole Barrett the guardian of the proposed ward. Subsequently, appellants filed a petition for writ of mandamus in our Court arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to appoint Barrett as J.D.J.'s guardian. In re Joan B. Jansky and Lonnie D. Jansky, No. 13-23-00157-CV, 2023 WL 3749343, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi- Edinburg May 31, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). We agreed with appellants and conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to vacate its guardianship order, and any following orders, as void. See id. at *4.
Our memorandum opinion conditionally granting the appellants' petition for writ of mandamus has a more detailed description of the underlying facts. See In re Joan B. Jansky and Lonnie D. Jansky, No. 13-23-00157-CV, 2023 WL 3749343, at *1-3 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg May 31, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
On June 7, 2023, appellants filed a motion to dismiss this appeal stating that it is now moot because the order appointing Barrett as J.D.J.'s guardian has been ordered vacated by this Court's mandamus order. See Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs. v. N.J., 644 S.W.3d 189, 192 (Tex. 2022) ("A case is moot when a justiciable controversy no longer exists between the parties or when the parties no longer have a legally cognizable interest in the outcome."). We agree with appellants that this cause is now moot. See id.; Klein v. Hernandez, 315 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex. 2010) ("Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies because the separation-of-powers article prohibits advisory opinions on abstract questions of law.").
The Court, having considered the documents on file and the motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). The motion is granted. We hereby dismiss this appeal. Costs will be taxed against appellants. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellants' request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained.