Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 14-26-00063-CV, January 27, 2026.
On appeal from the 129th District Court of Harris County.
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate a trial court’s order that granted a new trial and expunged a notice of lis pendens. The court held that the relator failed to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating that the trial court clearly abused its discretion or that there was no adequate remedy by appeal.
Relevance to Family Law
In the context of complex property litigation and divorce, this ruling emphasizes the near-impenetrable discretion of a trial court to restart the clock via a new trial order during its plenary power. For family law practitioners, it highlights the tactical danger of losing “final” orders and the difficulty of maintaining a lis pendens—the primary shield against the dissipation of marital real estate—once a trial court decides to vacate its own judgment.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Following the entry of an amended final judgment on October 25, 2025, the trial court exercised its plenary power to grant the real party in interest’s motion for a new trial. Relator Fariborz Shojai subsequently sought mandamus relief, requesting the appellate court to compel the trial court to vacate the new trial order, reinstate the judgment, and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. Crucially, the Relator also challenged the trial court’s decision to expunge a notice of lis pendens that had been filed against real property involved in the litigation. The Relator’s petition argued that the trial court’s actions were an abuse of discretion that could not be adequately remedied through the standard appellate process after a second trial.
Issues Decided
The court considered whether the Relator established entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus regarding three specific trial court actions:
1. The granting of a motion for new trial.
2. The expungement of a notice of lis pendens.
3. The refusal (or failure) to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law following the amended judgment.
Rules Applied
The court relied on the established mandamus standard set forth in In re Sherwin-Williams Co., 668 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. 2023), requiring the Relator to show both a clear abuse of discretion and the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal. Under Texas law, trial courts possess broad inherent power to set aside judgments and grant new trials. While In re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P. requires a trial court to state its reasons for granting a new trial, the appellate review of those reasons via mandamus remains highly deferential unless the order is void or the reasons given are legally insufficient on their face.
Application
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals conducted a review of the Relator’s petition, the appendix, and the supporting record. In Texas jurisprudence, a trial court’s order granting a new trial is typically considered an interlocutory order that is not subject to immediate appeal. The court determined that the Relator did not demonstrate that the trial court’s decision to restart the litigation process constituted a “clear abuse of discretion.” Because the granting of a new trial effectively vacates the prior judgment, the request for findings of fact and conclusions of law became a secondary issue that did not warrant the “extraordinary remedy” of mandamus. Furthermore, the court found the Relator failed to prove that any perceived error regarding the lis pendens or the new trial could not be addressed through the normal course of appeal following a final judgment in the subsequent trial.
Holding
The court denied the petition for writ of mandamus and the associated motion for temporary relief. The court held that the Relator failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s actions met the stringent criteria for mandamus intervention.
Each request for relief—vacating the new trial order, reinstating the lis pendens, and compelling findings—was denied because the Relator failed to establish that the trial court’s exercise of its plenary power was outside the bounds of its legal discretion or that the Relator lacked an adequate remedy at law.
Practical Application
For the family law litigator, this opinion serves as a cautionary tale regarding the fragility of a favorable judgment during the post-trial motion phase. If a trial court grants a new trial, the prevailing party is suddenly thrust back into a “pre-trial” posture, often without the protection of a lis pendens. Practitioners must be prepared to immediately re-file for temporary orders or seek an injunction to prevent a spouse from selling or encumbering real property once the lis pendens is expunged. Relying on mandamus to “save” the first trial’s result is statistically unlikely to succeed in the Fourteenth Court unless the trial court’s order is purely conclusory or signed after plenary power expired.
Checklists
Surviving a New Trial Order
- Check the date: Ensure the order was signed within 30 days of the judgment (or 75-90 days if a motion for new trial was filed).
- Analyze the “Reasons”: Determine if the order specifies the grounds for the new trial as required by In re Columbia.
- Assess Mootness: Recognize that a new trial order may moot previous requests for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Protecting Real Property After Expungement
- File for Temporary Orders: Immediately request a TRO or temporary injunction to prevent the transfer of real property.
- Update Title Research: Monitor the county real property records to ensure no third-party interests are recorded in the gap between the expungement and new protective orders.
- Evaluate Interlocutory Appeals: Determine if the specific grounds for the lis pendens expungement allow for a statutory interlocutory appeal as an alternative to mandamus.
Citation
In re Fariborz Shojai, No. 14-26-00063-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 27, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This civil ruling can be strategically weaponized in a Texas divorce. If a party receives an unfavorable property division or a high-value reimbursement claim is upheld, moving for a new trial and simultaneously seeking the expungement of a lis pendens can effectively “unfreeze” the assets. If the trial court grants the motion, the party who previously “lost” the property may suddenly have the legal freedom to sell, mortgage, or transfer the asset before the other spouse can secure new injunctive relief. Because mandamus is so difficult to obtain, the “winning” spouse is left in a vulnerable position where their only remedy is a second trial and a possible appeal years down the line, by which time the property—and the equity it represented—may be long gone.
~~379db74b-89a0-4043-8c50-7419a6bcb23a~~
Share this content: