IN RE: CG SEARCY (2024)

Supreme Court of Texas.

IN RE: CG SEARCY, LLC, Relator

No. 24-0170

Decided: March 29, 2024

Elizabeth Edwards, El Paso, Angela Pence England, for Other interested party Vicki Shook & Makenna Shook (Defendants in Divorce Action). J. Jim Hartnett Jr., Michael Hartnett, for Other interested party K. B. S. and W. C. S. Larry Adrian Flournoy Jr., Richardson, Chad McLain, Dallas, Alexandra Bradford, for Other interested party Ad Litem for Minor Child of the Marriage E.W.S. Rebecca Shapiro, Frisco, Aubrey M. Connatser, Adam R. Barela, Coyt (Randy) R. Johnston, Dallas, William Cook, Austin, Alissa M. Castro, Charles (Chad) E. Baruch, Lynne A. Corsi, Jere Hayes Hight, Abigail Gregory, Jeffrey E. Cook, for Real Party in Interest B. S., V. E. Brent Buyse, Dallas, Katelynn Armijo, Houston, Joseph Wayne Di Cecco, Jill Kristin Rotella Ysasaga, for Other interested party John Purvis, Gray Art Acquisitions, LLC and Aspen Property Acquisitions, LLC (Defendants in Divorce Action). Katherine Lewis, for Other interested party Amicus for Children. Kerry F. Schonwald, Alan S. Loewinsohn, Dallas, for Other interested party Crystal Lake Holdings, LLC (Defendant in Divorce Action). R. Kevin Spencer, Dallas, Blake Spencer, for Other interested party Kenneth Lindh (Trustee). Amy Warr, Anna M. Baker, Houston, Kerry F. Schonwald, Alan S. Loewinsohn, Dallas, Douglas W. Alexander, Austin, for Relator. Lisa Greenwood Duffee, Dallas, Randall B. Wilhite, Alan B. Daughtry, Grady Reiff, Houston, Michael L.R. Burnett, Austin, Jodi L. Bender, Scott Nyitray, for Other interested party M. C. S. (Resondent in Divorce Action).

Relator seeks mandamus relief from temporary orders in a divorce proceeding giving the real party in interest exclusive use and possession of a tax refund. The court of appeals denied relator's mandamus petition on both procedural and merits grounds. ––– S.W.3d ––––, 2024 WL 861385, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 29, 2024). As to the procedural ground, the court of appeals construed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7 to require the mandamus record to include all exhibits offered in relevant hearings, regardless of whether those exhibits are either relevant or material in determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. Id. This was error. Rule 52.7 requires a relator to file (1) “document[s] ․ material to the relator's claim for relief” and (2) “a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence.” Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) (emphases added). Because the prepositional phrase “including any exhibits offered in evidence” modifies “transcript of any relevant testimony,” an exhibit that is not relevant or material to the original proceeding need not be included in the mandamus record. Nevertheless, we agree with the court of appeals that relator failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief on the merits. We deny the mandamus petition and motion for temporary relief.

PER CURIAM

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law