Understanding the Impact of Interlocutory Appeal Stays on Family Law Proceedings

In re Lynn Madison, 24-1073, October 31, 2025.

On appeal from Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas

Synopsis

The Supreme Court of Texas held that an interlocutory TCPA appeal automatically stays all trial-court proceedings until the appellate mandate issues; the stay does not expire merely because a court of appeals’ plenary power has lapsed. A trial court’s rulings entered before the mandate issues — including case-dispositive orders and awards of attorney’s fees — are unauthorized and subject to vacatur and mandamus relief.

Relevance to Family Law

Although the underlying dispute here arose from debt-collection claims, the Court’s ruling controls interlocutory TCPA appeals across practice areas and therefore materially affects family-law litigation whenever a TCPA motion is filed. Practitioners in divorce, custody, and property disputes should assume that filing or appealing a TCPA motion freezes all trial-court activity until the appellate mandate issues; trial courts lack authority to decide or dispose of claims, award fees, or otherwise proceed on matters covered by the statutory stay until the mandate has issued.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The law firm Roberts Markel Weinberg Butler Hailey, PC filed a TCPA motion to dismiss in response to claims by Lynn Madison arising from collection and foreclosure activity. The trial court denied dismissal, and the firm filed an interlocutory appeal under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(12), which triggered the statutory automatic stay. The court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment for the firm and denied rehearing; before the appellate mandate issued, however, the firm returned to the trial court and successfully moved for TCPA attorney’s fees, and the trial court entered an order disposing of all claims against the firm. Madison timely preserved objections and sought mandamus relief after the trial court refused to vacate the fees order.

Issues Decided

The Supreme Court resolved whether the automatic stay attendant to an interlocutory TCPA appeal remains in effect until the appellate mandate issues — i.e., whether a trial court may take action on pending matters after the court of appeals has acted but before its mandate has been issued. The Court also addressed whether the trial court’s pre‑mandate order awarding attorney’s fees and dismissing claims was an abuse of discretion and therefore subject to mandamus relief.

Rules Applied

The Court applied the TCPA interlocutory appeal statute, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(12) and (b), which stays “all trial court proceedings pending resolution of that appeal.” It relied on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 18.6 (a court’s judgment takes effect when the mandate is issued) and prior Supreme Court precedent holding that an appellate decision is not final until mandate issues (Freeport‑McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC v. 1776 Energy Partners, LLC) and that § 51.014 contains no exceptions to the mandatory stay (In re Geomet Recycling LLC). The Court rejected the argument that expiration of a court of appeals’ plenary power resolves the appeal for purposes of the statutory stay.

Application

The Court framed the statutory stay’s operative date as tied to the appellate mandate rather than to the expiration of plenary power. It explained that Rule 18.6’s declaration that a court of appeals’ judgment “takes effect when the mandate is issued,” together with precedent treating the mandate as the official notice that appellate review is “once‑and‑for‑all finished,” shows that “resolution” under § 51.014(b) occurs only on mandate issuance. Because the time to file a petition for review in the Supreme Court had not yet expired, the court of appeals could not have issued its mandate, and thus the automatic stay remained operative. The trial court’s decision to hear and grant attorney’s fees before the mandate issued was therefore without authority. Given the absence of an adequate appellate remedy to correct a trial court’s voidable actions taken in violation of § 51.014(b), the Court granted conditional mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate the fees order and to reconsider pending matters anew if any party requests.

Holding

The Court held that an interlocutory appeal under the TCPA is not “resolved,” and the automatic stay that accompanies such an appeal does not expire, until the appellate mandate issues. This holding rejects any rule that the stay ends when a court of appeals’ plenary power lapses and clarifies that mandate issuance is the dispositive event ending the stay. As applied to the facts, the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and entry of a case‑dispositive order before the mandate issued was an abuse of discretion; mandamus relief was appropriate to require vacatur and fresh consideration once the mandate issued.

Practical Application

Family-law litigators must treat any interlocutory TCPA appeal as a complete bar to trial-court proceedings until the mandate issues. Practically, that means do not assume a court of appeals’ reversal or expiration of plenary power frees the trial court to act; monitor the appellate docket for mandate issuance before filing or arguing further proceedings in the trial court. If an opponent seeks relief in the trial court while a TCPA appeal is pending, object promptly, cite § 51.014(b) and controlling precedent (Geomet; Freeport‑McMoRan; this decision), and move to strike or vacate unauthorized orders. When you represent the party against whom post‑appeal trial court orders have been entered prematurely, preserve the record and be prepared to seek mandamus relief; the Supreme Court recognized there is generally no adequate remedy by appeal for orders purporting to lift or evade the statutory stay. Finally, consider the timing of petitions for review and rehearing in assessing when the appellate mandate can realistically issue; a pending petition for review or the available time to file one will prevent mandate issuance.

Checklists

Preserve the Stay Argument
– Object in writing in the trial court the first time the court considers any post‑appeal motion.
– Cite TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(b), Geomet, and In re Lynn Madison.
– Request the trial court to expressly acknowledge the pending interlocutory appeal and the related stay on the record.

Monitoring the Appellate Timeline
– Track court of appeals judgment and the deadlines for motion for rehearing and for filing a petition for review to determine when mandate could issue.
– Flag the case to receive the mandate notice and set an internal calendar for mandate issuance.
– Do not assume plenary‑power expiration equates to mandate issuance.

Responding to Opponent’s Trial‑Court Activity While Appeal Is Pending
– Immediately file a written objection and motion to vacate any orders entered pre‑mandate.
– Preserve emergency mandamus grounds by making a record that the trial court lacked authority to act.
– Prepare mandamus materials (petition, appendix) while preserving any rights on appeal.

When You Represent the Appellee Seeking Fees/Relief in Trial Court
– Do not seek to obtain case‑dispositive relief or fees in the trial court before the mandate issues.
– If you press for relief, be prepared to justify why the stay does not apply; expect the objection to be sustained in light of this precedent.
– If a ruling is entered pre‑mandate, be prepared to assist in vacatur and re‑present the claim after mandate issuance.

Rehearing and Petition for Review Strategy
– Recognize that a timely petition for review (or the time to file one) prevents the issuance of mandate.
– Coordinate appellate and trial-court strategies so that requests for relief at the trial level are not premature.
– Factor the potential delay in mandate issuance into client counseling and case management.