Opinion
No. 06-07-00013-CV
Date Submitted: February 14, 2007.
Date Decided: February 15, 2007.
Original Prohibition Proceeding.
Before MORRISS, C.J., CARTER and MOSELEY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John M. Stuckey, Jr., seeks from this Court a writ of prohibition barring enforcement of a judgment rendered Against Stuckey while his appeal from the trial court's earlier denial of Stuckey's special appearance was pending in this Court. We deny Stuckey's petition.
The judgment made the subject of Stuckey's petition for writ of prohibition was rendered January 8, 2007, by the Bowie County Court at Law, in cause number 01-C-1314-CCL. That judgment was rendered in favor of Dianna Sewell and David Sewell, in their capacities as co-executors of the estate of Norris W. Davis, deceased, and in their individual capacities, and was against Stuckey in his individual capacity and in his capacity as executor of the estate of Emogene Bedingfield Davis, deceased.
The underlying action alleged various types of malfeasance by Stuckey in estate proceedings. Stuckey's special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction was denied, and Stuckey appealed that ruling to this Court. Stuckey did not seek a stay of the proceedings from either the trial court or this Court, and it is not clear whether any further action by the trial court was automatically stayed pending resolution of Stuckey's interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(b), (c) (Vernon Supp. 2006) (interlocutory appeal of special appearance ruling stays some, not all, trial court proceedings). The County Court at Law proceeded with trial of the underlying case October 12, 2006, and signed a judgment January 8, 2007.
Because Stuckey's interlocutory appeal is pending, we have subject-matter jurisdiction to consider this original proceeding and to issue a writ of prohibition requiring the trial court to refrain from performing a future act. See In re Yates, 193 S.W.3d 151, 152 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); Lesikar v. Anthony, 750 S.W.2d 338, 339 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding).
This Court has jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition to protect its jurisdiction, including preventing interference with a pending appeal. Tex. Const. art. V, § 6; Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004). A writ of prohibition has three functions: preventing a lower court's interference with an appellate court's jurisdiction over a pending appeal, preventing lower courts from entertaining suits which will relitigate controversies which have already been settled by issuing courts, and prohibiting a trial court's action when it affirmatively appears that the court lacks jurisdiction. Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 683 (Tex. 1989); McClelland v. Partida, 818 S.W.2d 453 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991, orig proceeding); Tex. Capital Bank-Westwood v. Hon. Carolyn Johnson, 864 S.W.2d 186 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1993, orig. proceeding). The relief requested falls into none of these categories. The challenged action by the trial court does not interfere with our ability to decide an appeal pending before us, relitigation is not an issue, and the petition does not implicate the jurisdiction of the trial court over the proceeding.
Further, as with mandamus, prohibition is not appropriate if any other remedy — such as appeal or superseding the judgment — is available and adequate. Holloway, 767 S.W.2d at 684; In re Castle Tex. Prod. Ltd. P'ship, 189 S.W.3d 400, 404 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding).
We deny the petition for writ of prohibition.