IN RE: PATRICIA SWITZER (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The underlying case involved a dispute over life insurance proceeds. The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the real party in interest and relator appealed. Switzer v. Vaughan, No. 05-15-00811-CV, 2016 WL 4046990 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 27, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.). The proceeds at issue were placed in the registry of the court and then placed in an interest-bearing account during the appeal. This Court affirmed the judgment, the Texas Supreme Court denied relator's petition for review and motion for rehearing, and our mandate issued January 25, 2017. After our mandate issued, real party in interest filed a proposed order releasing the proceeds in the trial court, which the trial court signed.

In this original proceeding, relator complains of the trial court's order disbursing the proceeds. Relator contends the parties agreed to maintain the proceeds in the interest-bearing account until all appeals were concluded. She maintains that the proceeds should not be released until the United States Supreme Court decides her yet-to-be-filed petition for writ of certiorari.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The underlying judgment became final when the Texas Supreme Court denied relator's motion for rehearing. See In re Zurita, No. 03-12-00439-CV, 2012 WL 2989168, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin July 9, 2012, orig. proceeding); see also Universe Life Ins. Co. v. Giles, 982 S.W.2d 488, 492 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998, pet. denied). When our mandate issued on January 25, 2017, the trial court was required to comply with the mandate. TEX. R. APP. P. 51.1(b).

Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown she is entitled to the relief requested. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.

DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE