Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garcia, 05-26-00124-CV, February 05, 2026.
On appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Dallas Court of Appeals summarily denied a petition for writ of mandamus because the relator failed to adhere to the strict certification and record requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court reaffirmed its long-standing position that practitioners must use the “exact words” of Rule 52.3(k) (formerly 52.3(j)) and provide a properly sworn or certified record under Rule 52.7(a) to invoke the court’s jurisdiction for extraordinary relief.
Relevance to Family Law
In the volatile arena of family law litigation—where a mandamus petition is often the only vehicle to challenge temporary orders involving child possession, injunctions, or interim attorney’s fees—procedural precision is paramount. This ruling demonstrates that even a potentially meritorious argument against a trial court’s order will be discarded without review if the relator fails to satisfy the “magic words” of the appellate rules. For a family law practitioner, a failure to follow these technical requirements can result in the immediate denial of a stay, potentially leaving a client subject to an adverse custody or support order for the duration of the litigation.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Darren L. Reagan filed an original proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to vacate its January 28, 2026, order granting a Rule 91a motion to dismiss in favor of the real party in interest. While the underlying merits involved a dismissal under the “no basis in law or fact” standard of Rule 91a, the Fifth Court of Appeals never reached the substantive legal questions. Instead, the court focused on the relator’s failure to comply with the threshold requirements for filing a petition for writ of mandamus in the Dallas Court of Appeals. The petition suffered from numerous deficiencies, including non-compliance with the required form of the certification and the failure to provide a sworn or certified record of the proceedings below.
Issues Decided
The central issue was whether a relator’s failure to strictly comply with the certification requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k) and the record requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) precludes the court from considering the merits of a mandamus petition.
Rules Applied
The Court applied the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically Rules 52.3(c), (d), (k), (l)(1)(B), and 52.7(a). The court relied on its own precedent in In re Stewart, emphasizing that relators must use the verbatim language of the certification rule without deviation. Additionally, the court noted the Supreme Court of Texas’s renumbering of the rules effective January 1, 2026, which moved the certification requirement from Rule 52.3(j) to Rule 52.3(k).
Application
The court’s analysis was a straightforward application of the principle that original proceedings are governed by strict procedural prerequisites. Justice Garcia noted that the relator’s petition failed to include the specific certification language mandated by Rule 52.3(k). Under Dallas Court of Appeals precedent, any deviation from the “exact words” of the rule is fatal. Furthermore, the relator failed to provide an authenticated record under Rule 52.7(a). Because a mandamus record must be either sworn or certified by a court reporter or clerk, the relator’s failure to provide such a record meant there was no competent evidence upon which the court could base its review. The court treated these requirements as mandatory hurdles; without them, the petition was procedurally invisible to the court.
Holding
The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus. The court held that the relator’s failure to comply with the mandatory certification requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k) and the record requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) prevented the court from reaching the merits of the petition.
The court further held that strict adherence to the exact language of the rules is not a mere suggestion but a requirement for consideration of mandamus relief. Consequently, the petition was denied for failing to meet the basic requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Practical Application
This case serves as a warning for family law litigators who may be tempted to use standard verification templates. When seeking mandamus relief in the Fifth District, you must ensure your “Certification” section matches the 2026 version of Rule 52.3(k) word-for-word. Additionally, in the rush of a custody or property dispute, you cannot simply attach unauthenticated exhibits; the record must be sworn to by the relator or certified by the clerk/reporter. If you are challenging a trial court’s ruling on an emergency basis, a procedural oversight here could result in your petition being denied before the court ever reads your substantive arguments.
Checklists
Mandatory Certification Language
- Verify that the certification section is labeled according to the new numbering (Rule 52.3(k)).
- Ensure the certification states that the person has “reviewed the petition.”
- Ensure the certification states that “every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.”
- Avoid paraphrasing; use the verbatim text of the rule to avoid a summary denial in the Dallas court.
Mandamus Record Compliance
- Include a “sworn or certified copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim.”
- If the document is a court order, ensure it is a certified copy or supported by an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge.
- Confirm that a properly authenticated transcript of the underlying hearing (or a statement that no testimony was taken) is included in the record.
Citation
In re Darren L. Reagan, No. 05-26-00124-CV, 2026 WL [Pending] (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 5, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be effectively weaponized in Texas divorce or custody litigation. If your opposing counsel files a petition for writ of mandamus to stay a trial or challenge a temporary order, your first task should be a “procedural audit” of their filing. If they have failed to update their templates to the January 1, 2026, rule numbering, or if they have deviated from the “exact words” required by Rule 52.3(k), you should immediately move for a summary denial. In the Dallas Court of Appeals, this technicality is an absolute shield that can prevent an opponent from disrupting your trial court progress, regardless of the merits of their legal position.
~~13cf4f42-51ec-4d4e-b5e3-474306e1d1b1~~
Share this content: