eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2004-03

in Re: Albert Lynn Barcroft and Pam Barcroft ( 2004 )


Menu:

  • NO. 12-04-00048-CV



      

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS



    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT



      

    TYLER, TEXAS





      

    §





    IN RE: ALBERT LYNN BARCROFT,

    §
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

    RELATOR



    §



    MEMORANDUM OPINION

    Relator Albert Lynn Barcroft ("Barcroft") seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the trial court to (1) vacate its order denying Barcroft's motion to transfer venue and (2) transfer the underlying cause from Wood County to Fannin County. In his petition, Barcroft points out that the mandatory venue provisions of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code are enforceable by mandamus. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.0642 (Vernon 2002). Therefore, Barcroft's argument continues, mandamus is available in the case at hand because Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 15.035(a) is applicable and is a mandatory venue provision. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.035(a) (Vernon 2002) (county of performance proper venue where written contract provides for performance in particular county).

    This court lacks jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to supervise or correct incidental trial rulings when there is an adequate remedy by appeal. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Walker, 787 S.W.2d 954, 955 (Tex. 1990). Incidental rulings include venue determinations. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals, 929 S.W.2d 440, 441 (Tex. 1996). Section 15.0642 provides an exception to the general rule. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.0642. However, section 15.035(a) is permissive and not mandatory. Nat'l Family Care Life Ins. v. Fletcher, 57 S.W.3d 662, 665 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2001, pet. denied). Our mandamus jurisdiction does not encompass the enforcement of permissive provisions. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.0642; In re Mendoza, 83 S.W.3d 233, 236 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2002, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, Barcroft's petition for writ of mandamus is denied.



       SAM GRIFFITH   

    Justice





    Opinion delivered March 17, 2004.

    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J. and DeVasto, J.













































    (PUBLISH)