in Re: Roger Liverman ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                    COURT OF APPEALS
    EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    EL PASO, TEXAS
    §                 No. 08-16-00235-CV
    IN RE:
    §              ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    ROGER LIVERMAN,
    §            ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF
    RELATOR.
    §                    MANDAMUS
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Relator, Roger Liverman, has filed a mandamus petition against the Honorable Bill Eyler,
    Judge of the 112th Probate Court, in Upton County, Texas, asking that we order Judge Eyler to
    set a hearing on a bill of review and various applications or motions Relator filed on July 22,
    2016. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
    To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must meet two requirements. First, the
    relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. In re Prudential Insurance
    Company of America, 
    148 S.W.3d 124
    , 135 (Tex. 2004). Second, the relator must demonstrate
    that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. 
    Id. at 135-36.
    Mandamus may issue to compel a
    trial court to rule on a motion which has been pending before the court for a reasonable period of
    time. See In re Shredder Co., LLC., 
    225 S.W.3d 676
    , 679 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2006, orig.
    proceeding); In re Hearn, 
    137 S.W.3d 681
    , 685 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding);
    In re Chavez, 
    62 S.W.3d 225
    , 228 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). To obtain
    mandamus relief for such refusal, a relator must establish: (1) the motion was properly filed and
    has been pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3)
    the trial court refused to rule. See Shredder 
    Co., 225 S.W.3d at 679
    ; 
    Hearn, 137 S.W.3d at 685
    ;
    
    Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228
    .
    Relator filed his mandamus petition less than two months after he filed his bill of review
    and the applications seeking various forms of relief. There is no bright-line rule establishing
    what is a reasonable time period. In re Bates, 
    65 S.W.3d 133
    , 135 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2001,
    orig. proceeding). In Bates, the Amarillo Court of Appeals stated that it could not hold as a
    matter of law that the passage of seven weeks constitutes an unreasonable period of time for a
    motion to remain pending. 
    Bates, 65 S.W.3d at 136
    . Relator also failed to present any evidence
    that he requested a hearing on his bill of review or the applications, or that Respondent refused to
    set a hearing. Consequently, Relator has not shown he is entitled to mandamus relief. The
    petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
    September 28, 2016
    YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice
    Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-16-00235-CV

Filed Date: 9/28/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/3/2016