WPCG5 2~ ZBVXXN\  PXPa1DocumentDocument StyleF *  ׃  a2DocumentDocument Style*    a3DocumentDocument Style0     2Zpe epa4DocumentDocument Style . a5DocumentDocument Style   a6DocumentDocument Style   a7DocumentDocument Style ` ` ` 2p   Ha8DocumentDocument Style` ` ` a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style 4!     a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style *    a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style '    2/  'a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style &    a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style &  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . 2 a  w  a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&   . a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8!"@   a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA#$@` `  ` ` ` a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ%&@  ` `  2  K  a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS'(@  a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\)*@hh# hhh a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numberse+,@( hh# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn-.@- ( 2T>a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw/0@pp2 -ppp     X0Í Í X0Í Í Roman 12ptRoman Courier 12pt'12#d6X@@#Op. DraftOpinion -- Draft34  (c#j\  P6;XPH#   3 1, 4 @&D R A F T` APage  _______________________________________________________ 2njItalic 12ptItalics Courier 12pt type'56'#x6NhH##x6NhH#BibliogrphyBibliography78 Doc InitInitialize Document Style9:    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲTech InitInitialize Technical Style;< 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2H 3!"_PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper=>   ,#j\  P6;XPH# X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Home PtrSets codes for printing opinions on Sperry Laser Q?@ X #Xx6X@X@#  EnvelopeEnvelope!AB '3 II    Xp,  p,p, Letter 2Personal stationery with standard margins"bCD#XN\  PXP#   p,  3 1, 4 2#K$%p&pLetter 3Personal stationery with narrow margins#bEF#&R2P&P#     3 1, 4 Letter 1Court stationery$PGH#XZ2P XP# * 3 1, 4 ؃ Single Space% I J1Document Style&KL` ` ` 2!'q(e0 )e * 2Document Style'M N . 3Document Style( OP 4Document Style) QR 5Document Style**ST   2#+p!,/"-".\#6Document Style+UV` ` ` 7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers,8WX@   8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers-AYZ@` `  ` ` ` 9Document Style.0[ \    2&/#$0$1t%2*&10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers/J]^@  ` `  11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers0S_`@  12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers1\ab@hh# hhh 13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers2ecd@( hh# 2)3'4'5(6n)14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers3nef@- ( 15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers4wgh@pp2 -ppp 16Document Style5Fij *  ׃  17Technical Document Style6&kl  . 2o,7%*8*9F+:+18Technical Document Style7&mn  . 19Technical Document Style8*op    20Technical Document Style9'qr   21Technical Document Style:&st   2 5;,<Q-=-0[.22Technical Document Style;4u$v     23Technical Document Style<&wx  . 24Technical Document Style=&yz  . īXN\  PXPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXd6X@@<6X9`("Courier NewTTj\  P6;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanXx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTj\  P6;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanXXx6X@X@<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXN\  PXP% [  `*Times New RomanTTX&R2P&P7|A`$ArialTT&XZ2P XP& A`ArialTTX2=5E53|x  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ă & &No. 970483ă & In Re Union Pacific Resources Company, Relator   On Petition for Writ of Mandamus   ! Argued December 4, 1997 Chief Justice Phillips delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Enoch, Justice Spector, Justice Owen, Justice Baker, Justice Abbott, and Justice Hankinson join.  Justice Hecht filed a concurring opinion. Justice Gonzalez did not participate in the decision. In this case, the court of appeals conditionally issued a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to vacate its order denying a recusal motion. 946 S.W.2d 533. Because the complaining party has an adequate remedy by appeal, mandamus was improper. We therefore conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. We express no opinion regarding whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the recusal motion. Jeffrey Lee Monroe and Gena Jo Monroe sued Union Pacific Resources Company and other defendants for personal injury damages. The Monroes moved to recuse the trial judge, the Honorable Max Bennett. The Monroes alleged, as grounds for recusal, that Carlos Villareal, a partner in the law firm representing Union Pacific in the underlying lawsuit, was currently representing Judge Bennett, in his official capacity, in an unrelated lawsuit. The Monroes alleged that Judge Bennetts impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of the attorneyclient relationship with Mr. Villareal. Judge Bennett declined to recuse himself. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a(d) Judge Bennett forwarded the motion to recuse to the presiding judge for the administrative judicial district. The presiding judge appointed the Honorable Robert Blackmon, Nueces County district judge, to hear the recusal motion. After a hearing at which Judge Bennett appeared and testified, Judge Blackmon granted the motion ordering Judge Bennetts recusal. Judge Bennett then wrote to Judge Blackmon requesting a rehearing on the recusal matter. In response to Judge Bennetts request, Judge Blackmon held another hearing and reversed his ruling. In response to this second ruling, the Monroes petitioned the court of appeals for writ of mandamus to direct Judge Blackmon to vacate his order and grant the motion for recusal. The court of appeals sitting en banc divided evenly on the petition, and the Chief Justice of this Court assigned the Honorable Alfonso Chapa, Retired Chief Justice of the Fourth Court of Appeals, to the case. See Tex. Govt Code  74.003(b); Tex. R. App. P. 41.2(b). With Justice Chapa sitting, the court of appeals conditionally granted the Monroes petition for writ of mandamus. Union Pacific then sought mandamus relief from this Court. Judges may be removed from a particular case either because they are constitutionally disqualified, Tex. Const. art. V,  11, because they are subject to a statutory strike, Tex. Govt Code  74.053(d), or because they are recused under rules promulgated by this Court. Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a, 18b; Tex. R. App. P. 16. The grounds and procedures for each type of removal are fundamentally different. See generally Kilgarlin & Bruch, Disqualification and Recusal of Judges, 17 St. Marys L.J. 599 (1986). When a judge continues to sit in violation of a constitutional proscription, mandamus is available to compel the jud by appeal.  Cf. Mitchell Energy Corp. v. Ashworth, 943 S.W.2d 436, 437 (Tex. 1997) (addressing the mandatory disqualification of assigned judges under Tex. Govt Code  74.053(d)). This makes sense, because any orders or judgments rendered by a judge who is constitutionally disqualified are void and without effect. See, e.g., Buckholts Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Glaser, 632 S.W.2d 146, 148 (Tex. 1982); Fry v. Tucker, 202 S.W.2d 218, 221 (Tex. 1947). Likewise, on timely objection, the disqualification of an assigned judge who is not a retired judge is mandatory under section 74.053(d) of the Texas Government Code and any orders entered by a trial judge in a case in which he is disqualified are void. See Mitchell Energy Corp., 943 S.W.2d at 440441; Fry, 202 S.W.2d at 221. Therefore, the objecting party is also entitled to mandamus relief without a showing that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See Dunn v. Street, 938 S.W.2d 33, 3435 (Tex. 1997); Flores v. Banner, 932 S.W.2d 500, 501 (Tex. 1996). In contrast, the erroneous denial of a recusal motion does not void or nullify the presiding judges subsequent acts. While a judgment rendered in such circumstances may be reversed on appeal, it is not fundamental error and can be waived if not raised by proper motion. See Buckholts Indep. Sch. Dist., 632 S.W.2d at 148; Gulf Maritime Warehouse Co. v. Towers, 858 S.W.2d 556, 559 (Tex. App."Beaumont 1993, writ denied); Aguilar v. Anderson, 855 S.W.2d 799, 809810 (Tex. App."El Paso 1993, writ denied); AmSav Group, Inc. v. Amer. Sav. & Loan Assn, 796 S.W.2d 482, 485 (Tex. App."Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied). Recognizing this distinction, our Rules of Civil Procedure expressly provide for appellate review from a final judgment after denial of a recusal motion. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(f); Thomas v. Walker, 860 S.W.2d 579, 581 (Tex. App."Waco 1993, orig. proceeding). If the appellate court determines that the judge presiding over the recusal hearing abused his or her discretion in denying the motion and the trial judge should have been recused, the appellate court can cure any harm by reversing the trial courts judgment and remanding for a new trial before a different judge. This procedure is no different than the correction of any trial court error through the normal appellate process. As we have observed, an appellate remedy is not inadequate merely because it may involve more expense or delay than obtaining an extraordinary writ. . . . [T]he delay in getting questions decided through the appellate process . . . will not justify intervention by appellate courts through the extraordinary writ of mandamus.  Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 842 (Tex. 1992) (quoting Iley v. Hughes, 311 S.W.2d 648, 652 (Tex. 1958)). The court of appeals abused its discretion by issuing writ of mandamus when the complaining party has an adequate remedy by appeal. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(f); see also Thomas v. Walker, 860 S.W.2d at 581. We therefore conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the court of appeals to withdraw its order conditionally granting writ of mandamus against the trial court. Tex. Govt Code  22.002(a). ` ` ` hhh___________________________________ ` ` ` hhhThomas R. Phillips` ` ` hhhChief Justice Opinion delivered: March 26, 1998