Mind the Record: 14th Court Rejects Mandamus Over Trial Court Inaction, Providing a Roadmap for Family Law Procedural Appeals.
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 14-26-00066-CV, January 27, 2026.
On appeal from Unknown
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel a trial court to rule on pending motions because the relator failed to provide a record containing file-stamped copies of the motions. Furthermore, the relator failed to demonstrate that the motions had been affirmatively called to the trial court’s attention, a prerequisite for establishing an abuse of discretion based on judicial inaction.
Relevance to Family Law
In high-conflict family law litigation, practitioners frequently encounter the “pocket veto”—a scenario where a trial court indefinitely delays ruling on critical temporary orders, motions to compel discovery, or motions for enforcement. While mandamus is the appropriate vehicle to break this logjam, In re Ybarra serves as a stark reminder that the appellate court will not assume a motion is “pending” based on mere allegations. For the family lawyer, this means that the administrative act of filing and the procedural act of requesting a ruling must be meticulously documented to survive the rigorous record requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Ray A. Ybarra sought extraordinary relief from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, requesting a writ of mandamus to compel the judge of Probate Court No. 4 in Harris County to rule on various motions and petitions. Ybarra alleged that these instruments had been filed and remained pending without resolution. However, the record submitted with the petition was functionally empty regarding the procedural status of these filings. Specifically, Ybarra did not include file-stamped copies of the motions he wished the court to rule upon, nor did he provide documentation—such as correspondence to the coordinator or a transcript of a status conference—showing that he had actually asked the trial court for a ruling and been ignored or refused.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether a relator can establish a clear abuse of discretion for a trial court’s failure to rule on pending motions when the mandamus record lacks file-stamped copies of those motions and proof that the motions were called to the court’s attention.
Rules Applied
The court relied on the foundational principle from Walker v. Packer that the relator bears the burden of providing a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. Under In re Robbins, a trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on motions that are properly filed and pending; however, to trigger mandamus relief for a breach of this duty, a relator must show the court (1) had a legal duty to perform, (2) was asked to perform, and (3) failed or refused to do so. Supporting this, In re Wigley requires that the record include either a file-stamped copy of the motion or other proof of filing (such as postage and mailing verification), while In re Novak establishes that a trial court cannot be found to have abused its discretion for failing to consider a motion that was never brought to its attention.
Application
The court’s analysis focused entirely on the evidentiary vacuum in the relator’s petition. Although a trial court possesses a ministerial duty to rule on motions, that duty is not triggered in the eyes of the appellate court unless the relator proves the motion exists in the trial court’s universe. The court noted that Ybarra’s failure to provide file-stamped copies was fatal. Without a file stamp, there is no proof the motion was “properly filed and pending.”
The court further emphasized that filing a document with the clerk does not automatically “call it to the attention” of the bench. The narrative of the opinion suggests that even if the motions had been properly filed, the relator’s failure to document a request for a ruling—essentially a “demand” for the court to perform its ministerial duty—left the appellate court with no choice but to deny relief. The court refused to speculate on the status of the trial court’s docket based on the relator’s unverified assertions.
Holding
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus. The court held that the relator failed to carry his burden under Walker v. Packer to provide a record sufficient to establish an abuse of discretion.
The court specifically held that the absence of file-stamped copies or other competent proof of filing meant the relator could not demonstrate that the motions were properly before the trial court. Consequently, without proof of filing and proof of the motions being called to the court’s attention, the relator could not show that the trial court failed or refused to act on a legal duty.
Practical Application
This case provides a roadmap for family law litigators dealing with recalcitrant trial courts. If you are preparing to mandamus a judge for failing to rule on a Motion for Temporary Orders or a Motion for Clarification, your “paper trail” is your evidence. You cannot rely on the fact that the clerk’s file reflects the motion. You must proactively create a record that the judge knew about the motion and refused to act. This often requires sending a formal “Request for Ruling” to the court coordinator and the judge, or setting the matter for a hearing and, if the court cancels or refuses to hear it, ensuring that refusal is documented via a court reporter or a formal written inquiry.
Checklists
Perfecting the Mandamus Record
- Verify Filing Evidence
- Ensure you have a “File-Stamped” copy of the motion in question.
- If a file-stamped copy is unavailable, retain the E-Filing “Acceptance” certificate or an affidavit from the person who hand-delivered the filing.
- Establish “Notice” to the Bench
- File a formal “Request for Ruling” or “Notice of Intent to Seek Mandamus.”
- Keep copies of emails to the Court Coordinator requesting a hearing date or a ruling.
- Obtain a transcript of any hearing where the court explicitly refused to rule or took the matter under advisement for an unreasonable length of time.
Avoiding Procedural Denial
- Rule 52 Compliance
- Include an appendix containing every document “material to the claim for relief.”
- Ensure all documents in the record are sworn or certified as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
- Verify that the “Trial Court” and “Cause Number” are clearly identified and that the record reflects the current status of the proceedings.
Citation
In re Ybarra, No. 14-26-00066-CV, 2026 WL [TBD] (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 27, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In the context of a divorce or custody case, this ruling can be weaponized to defeat a desperation mandamus filed by opposing counsel. When an opponent files a mandamus to force a ruling on a problematic Motion for Sanctions or a Motion to Recuse, the first line of defense is the record. If they haven’t provided file-stamped copies of their motions or, more importantly, if they haven’t documented a specific request for a ruling on the record, the petition is dead on arrival.
Conversely, for the practitioner seeking to move a case forward, this case mandates a “Belt and Suspenders” approach. In a property case where the judge refuses to sign a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), simply filing the QDRO is insufficient for mandamus. You must file the motion, request a hearing, and if no hearing is granted, file a “Request for Ruling” and include all of that in your mandamus record. Without the file-stamp and the proof of “calling it to the court’s attention,” the Fourteenth Court will not intervene in the trial court’s docket management.
~~70802fa2-e410-433b-aa92-4a45460ec4cf~~
Share this content:
