In Re: Alfredo Joshua Loya v. the State of Texas

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
IN RE: ALFREDO JOSHUA LOYA § No. 08-23-00348-CV
Relator. § AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
§ IN MANDAMUS
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is Husband’s petition for writ of mandamus in the underlying divorce
suit. In the petition, Husband seeks relief from the trial court’s order requiring him to pay $50,000
of Wife’s interim attorney’s fees from a trust account. 1
Husband must meet two requirements to demonstrate he is entitled to relief by mandamus.
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). He must
show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that he has no adequate remedy by
appeal. Id. at 135–36.
Husband argues that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in making the interim
attorney’s fees award, as it “without reference to any guiding rules, evidence, or principles of law.”
1
The order further states “said amount will be considered when the court determines the just and right division of
the marital estate.”
In his statement of the case, he asserts “[a]t issue here is a temporary order for $50,000 in attorney’s
fees to be paid with only three days’ notice and is beyond Relators ability to pay.” 2 He states that
the fees would deplete the community estate, rather than benefit the parties, and cause “irreparable
harm.”
Aside from his naked assertions and legal references regarding requirements to examine
Wife’s need for this amount of attorney’s fees and weigh Wife’s needs against his ability to pay,
Husband has provided no record substantiating his claims that the trial court acted arbitrarily.
Accordingly, we are unable to conclude that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.
As Husband has not established he is entitled to mandamus relief, we deny his petition for
writ of mandamus.
LISA J. SOTO, Justice
December 21, 2023
Before Alley, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
2
Husband’s petition notes that the trial court’s order gave him just three days to comply; however, this Court stayed
the portion of the trial court’s order requiring the payment of fees pending the resolution of this mandamus action.
2