in Re Karen Wakefield ( 2010 )

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted and Memorandum Opinion filed December 15, 2010.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-10-01160-CV

____________

IN RE KAREN WAKEFIELD, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            In this original proceeding, relator, Karen Wakefield, seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the respondent, the Honorable Kyle Carter, to vacate the trial court’s order of November 19, 2010, requiring relator to deposit $50,000 into the registry of the court. 

            The underlying proceeding is a suit brought by real party in interest Guy Laramee against Wakefield for breach of contract and theft of $50,000.  Laramee’s suit is based upon Wakefield’s alleged breach of a settlement agreement.  Laramee asked the trial court to order Wakefield to deposit $50,000 into the registry of the court.   The trial court granted that relief. 

            Mandamus relief is available if the trial court abuses its discretion when there is no other adequate remedy by law.  See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992).  Effectively, the trial court’s order is a pre-judgment writ of attachment.  See Behringer Harvard Royal Island, L.L.C. v. Skokos, No. 05-09-00332-CV, 2009 WL 4756579, at * 3 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.).  However, the record fails to reflect the requirements for obtaining a writ of attachment were met in this case.  Id. Accordingly, we find the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the payment of $50,000 into the registry of the court.  Further, we conclude relator has no adequate remedy at law.  Id. at * 4.

            We therefore conditionally grant the petition for a writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to vacate its November 19, 2010 order.  The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to act in accordance with this opinion.

                                                                        PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Seymore, Boyce, and Christopher.