in Re: William Hayes Wyttenbach

NUMBER 13-12-00191-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE WILLIAM HAYES WYTTENBACH
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Vela, and Perkes
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1
Relator, William Hayes Wyttenbach, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the
above cause on March 23, 2012 seeking that we “[o]rder the trial court erred and had
NO jurisdiction in a NEW ORIGINAL PETITION and that it also has NO continuing
jurisdiction in the underlying custody matter and that all orders made after the filing of
the NEW original petition are VOID ORDERS and further order that this NEW trial court
is to stay from making any further orders in this matter.”
1
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is
not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must
show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to
mandamus relief. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig.
proceeding). This burden is a heavy one. See In re Epic Holdings, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 41
(Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding).
When the trial court's order is void, mandamus relief is available regardless of
whether there is an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d
602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding); In re Mask, 198 S.W.3d 231, 233–34 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2006, orig. proceeding). A judgment is void only when it is shown
that the court had no jurisdiction of the parties or property, no jurisdiction of the subject
matter, no jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment, or no capacity to act as a court.
Browning v. Placke, 698 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tex. 1985).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief
sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
27th day of March, 2012.
2