Mandamus Relief Denied in Challenge to Trial Court Order Vacating Oral Judgment and Granting Retrial

In re Persian Marshall, 13-26-00126-CV, February 23, 2026.

On appeal from Unknown

Synopsis

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus where a trial court vacated a predecessor judge’s oral rendition and ordered a new trial. The Court concluded that the relator failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s refusal to utilize a clarifying order under Texas Family Code § 157.421, in lieu of a retrial, constituted a clear abuse of discretion or left the relator without an adequate remedy by appeal.

Relevance to Family Law

For family law practitioners, this decision underscores the inherent instability of an oral rendition that has not yet been memorialized in a signed, written judgment—particularly during a transition between judges. While Texas Family Code § 157.421 provides a mechanism for clarifying non-specific orders, this case suggests that a successor judge retains broad discretion to “start over” via a new trial rather than attempting to interpret or clarify a predecessor’s oral ruling. Litigators must recognize that until a final decree is signed, the “path of least resistance” for a successor judge may be a total retrial, and mandamus is an unlikely tool to compel a different result.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Relator Persian Marshall sought mandamus relief after a successor trial judge vacated a prior judge’s orally rendered final judgment. The predecessor judge rendered an oral ruling on the merits, but before a written judgment was signed, the successor judge took over the case. Finding the prior rendition or the state of the record insufficient or lacking specificity, the successor judge vacated the oral rendition and ordered a complete retrial on all issues. Marshall challenged this move, arguing that the trial court was required to use a less “drastic” remedy—specifically, a clarifying order under Texas Family Code § 157.421—to address any perceived ambiguities in the predecessor’s ruling rather than forcing the parties to re-litigate the entire matter.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether a trial court abuses its discretion by vacating a predecessor’s oral rendition and ordering a new trial when a statutory clarification process is available under the Texas Family Code. Additionally, the Court addressed whether the relator had established the secondary mandamus requirement: the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal.

Rules Applied

The Court applied the standard for mandamus relief established in In re Illinois National Insurance Co. and Walker v. Packer, which requires the relator to prove both a clear abuse of discretion and the lack of an adequate appellate remedy. Regarding the merits, the Court considered the trial court’s plenary power and the application of Texas Family Code § 157.421, which allows a court to render a clarifying order if the previous order is not specific enough to be enforced by contempt.

Application

The relator’s argument centered on the availability of Texas Family Code § 157.421. Marshall contended that because the legislature provided a specific mechanism to fix “un-enforceable” or vague family law orders, the trial court overstepped its bounds by ignoring that remedy in favor of a new trial. However, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals focused on the heavy evidentiary and legal burden placed on a relator in a mandamus proceeding. The Court reviewed the petition and the applicable law but found that Marshall failed to prove that the successor judge’s decision fell outside the zone of reasonable discretion. Because the underlying oral rendition was never reduced to a written judgment, the trial court maintained the authority to manage its docket and the integrity of its judgments, including the decision to hear the evidence firsthand if the predecessor’s record was deemed inadequate.

Holding

The Court held that the relator did not meet her burden to obtain extraordinary relief. Specifically, the Court found no clear abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to vacate the oral rendition and order a new trial. The Court noted that the relator failed to demonstrate that the trial court acted arbitrarily or without reference to guiding legal principles.

Furthermore, the Court held that the relator failed to show she lacked an adequate remedy by appeal. Because both prongs of the mandamus test must be satisfied to warrant relief, the Court denied the petition and lifted the stay previously imposed on the trial court proceedings.

Practical Application

This case serves as a tactical warning: an oral rendition is a fragile victory. When a judge who rendered an oral judgment leaves the bench (due to retirement, election results, or recusal), the successor judge is not a mere “scrivener” for their predecessor. If the successor judge is uncomfortable with the clarity or the basis of the oral ruling, they have the discretion to order a new trial. To mitigate this risk, practitioners should move for an immediate entry of judgment following an oral rendition or, at the very least, secure a comprehensive Rule 11 agreement that adopts the oral rendition to bind the parties regardless of which judge sits on the bench.

Checklists

Protecting an Oral Rendition During Judicial Transitions

• Request Findings of Fact: If the court renders orally, immediately request findings of fact and conclusions of law to create a robust record that a successor judge can rely upon.
• Draft Promptly: Submit a proposed final decree within 24–48 hours of the oral rendition to minimize the window for a “vacate and retry” order.
• Secure the Transcript: Obtain an expedited transcript of the oral rendition so that any ambiguity can be addressed while the rendering judge still has plenary power.
• Rule 11 Backup: Attempt to have opposing counsel sign a Rule 11 agreement on the record that memorializes the terms of the oral rendition as a contract, which may survive the vacating of the judicial rendition.

Challenging a Successor Judge’s Order for New Trial

• Specificity Analysis: If the judge claims the predecessor’s order was “vague,” provide a redlined version of a proposed clarifying order under § 157.421 to show the court that a new trial is mathematically and legally unnecessary.
• Preserve the Record: Ensure that the record reflects the cost and delay associated with a new trial to strengthen a future “adequate remedy by appeal” argument, even if mandamus is denied.
• Mandamus Evidentiary Burden: If pursuing mandamus, the relator must provide a record that proves the successor judge had no legal basis to find the predecessor’s ruling unclear.

Citation

In re Persian Marshall, No. 13-26-00126-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 23, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

~~dc2a92cc-5260-41a4-acbc-3cbc6243853b~~