First Court Denies Mandamus Where Relator Failed to Show Motions Were Presented to Trial Court

In re Lisa Marie Clontz, 01-26-00396-CV, April 28, 2026.

On appeal from 309th District Court of Harris County, Texas

Synopsis

Mandamus will not issue to force a trial court to rule merely because a motion appears in the clerk’s file. In In re Lisa Marie Clontz, the First Court of Appeals denied relief because the relator did not show that her motion to transfer venue and motion to reinstate were actually presented to the trial court, brought to the court’s attention, or accompanied by a demand for a ruling.

Relevance to Family Law

This opinion matters in family law because venue motions, reinstatement motions, enforcement requests, temporary-orders disputes, and post-judgment motions often move quickly and can materially affect leverage, forum, scheduling, and appellate posture. In divorce, SAPCR, modification, and property-division litigation, counsel seeking mandamus based on a trial court’s failure to rule must build a record showing not just filing, but presentment, judicial awareness, and a request for action; otherwise, even a substantively strong complaint may fail on a record-preservation defect.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The relator, proceeding pro se, sought mandamus relief in the First Court of Appeals arising from a Harris County family-law matter pending in the 309th District Court. She complained that the trial court had failed to rule on what she characterized as long-pending motions, specifically a motion to transfer venue and a motion to reinstate and withdraw attorney.

In support of her petition, the relator included file-stamped copies of those motions in the mandamus record. She also included a document styled as an emergency request for hearing by submission, a motion for ruling on pending motions, a request to compel performance of a ministerial duty, and an application for temporary injunction. But the appellate record did not show that this latter document had actually been filed in the trial court, nor did it show that any of the motions had been set, submitted, presented in open court, called to the court coordinator’s attention, or otherwise affirmatively brought before the trial judge for decision.

That omission drove the result. The court treated the case not as one about whether the motions had been pending too long in the abstract, but whether the relator had carried the threshold mandamus burden to prove the trial court knew of the motions and was asked to rule.

Issues Decided

• Whether a relator is entitled to mandamus relief compelling a trial court to rule on pending motions when the mandamus record shows only that the motions were file-stamped.
• Whether filing a motion with the district clerk, without proof of presentment to the trial court or a demand for ruling, establishes that the trial court failed or refused to perform a ministerial duty.
• Whether an unfiled or unsupported document requesting a hearing or ruling can satisfy the relator’s burden under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7.

Rules Applied

The court applied settled mandamus principles governing complaints that a trial court failed to rule on a pending motion.

• A trial court has a duty to consider and rule on a properly filed and pending motion within a reasonable time. The court cited In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding), for that baseline rule.
• Mandamus may issue to compel a ruling when a trial court fails to act within a reasonable time. The court referenced In re OxyVinyls, LP, No. 01-23-00708-CV, 2023 WL 8938412, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 28, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), where relief was granted after a motion to compel arbitration remained unresolved despite being set on the submission docket.
• To obtain mandamus for failure to perform a ministerial duty, the relator must show that the trial court had a legal duty to act, was asked to act, and then failed or refused to do so. The court cited In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding).
• A relator cannot establish refusal to act without showing that the trial court was aware of the obligation to act. On that point, the court again relied on In re Blakeney, particularly the principle that filing with the clerk is not proof of presentment to the judge.
• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a)(1) requires the relator to file a certified or sworn copy of every material document filed in the underlying proceeding.
• The court also cited In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding), for the proposition that mandamus is unavailable when the relator fails to show a demand was made on the trial court for action.

Application

The First Court applied these rules in a straightforward but important way. It accepted that the relator had included file-stamped copies of the venue and reinstatement motions, so there was at least some showing that the documents had been filed. But the court drew the critical distinction between filing and presentment. A file stamp established only that the motions were placed with the clerk; it did not establish that the trial judge ever saw them, that the court coordinator scheduled them, that they were submitted, or that anyone requested a ruling.

The court then looked for record evidence showing the judge had been asked to act. That evidence was missing. There was no hearing notice, no submission notice, no proposed order routed to chambers, no correspondence to the court, no docket entry reflecting presentment, no reporter’s record of an oral request, and no filed request for ruling tied to the motions. Although the mandamus record contained a document requesting hearing and ruling-related relief, the record did not show that document had been filed in the trial court. Even if the document had persuasive rhetoric, it had no evidentiary value for mandamus purposes without proof it was actually part of the trial-court record and brought to the court’s attention.

That absence prevented the court from finding the trial court failed or refused to perform a ministerial act. From the appellate court’s perspective, the problem was not necessarily delay; it was the relator’s failure to prove judicial awareness and demand. Without that proof, mandamus could not lie.

Holding

The court held that the relator failed to establish entitlement to mandamus relief compelling the trial court to rule on her motion to transfer venue and motion to reinstate. File-stamped copies of the motions were not enough because they did not show the motions had been presented to, or brought to the attention of, the trial court.

The court further held that the relator failed to show she had made a demand on the trial court to rule. Because the mandamus record did not include evidence that the judge was asked to act and then refused or failed to do so, the relator did not satisfy the elements required for mandamus based on failure to perform a ministerial duty. The petition was therefore denied, and any pending motions were dismissed as moot.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, this case is less about the substantive merits of venue or reinstatement than about mandamus-proofing the record. In practice, these issues arise constantly. A party files a motion to transfer venue in a SAPCR or divorce involving competing counties; a case is dismissed for want of prosecution and one side files a motion to reinstate; a motion to enter, clarify, or enforce property division sits unresolved while deadlines continue to run. When counsel later considers mandamus, the temptation is to rely on the existence of filed motions and the passage of time. Clontz is a reminder that this is not enough.

In divorce cases, especially those involving urgent temporary-orders disputes or parallel county filings, venue can be outcome-determinative. If you intend to seek appellate intervention because the trial court has not ruled on a venue motion, make sure the record shows repeated and concrete presentment efforts: hearing requests, coordinator emails, filed notices of submission, cover letters to the court, proposed orders, and, if possible, a docket notation or hearing transcript. In reinstatement practice, where timing can be especially consequential after dismissal, the same rule applies. A motion to reinstate that is merely filed but never affirmatively presented may become functionally useless if counsel later lacks a record showing the court was asked to rule.

This principle also translates to custody modifications, enforcement proceedings, and post-decree property disputes. If a judge has not acted on a request affecting possession schedules, child support enforcement, turnover of property, or clarification of decree language, the appellate question will often turn first on record quality. The lawyer who can prove presentment and demand preserves the mandamus option. The lawyer who cannot may lose procedural leverage regardless of the underlying merits.

A prudent family-law litigator should assume that every potentially significant motion may someday need to be defended on mandamus or on direct appeal. That means building a paper trail from the outset, not after delay has become prejudicial.

Checklists

Creating a Mandamus-Ready Record on a Pending Motion

• File the motion with the clerk and obtain a file-stamped copy.
• Request a hearing date or submission date from the court coordinator in writing.
• File a notice of hearing or notice of submission.
• Send the motion, notice, and proposed order to the court through the court’s required procedures.
• Preserve written communications showing that the court was asked to consider the motion.
• If the request is made in open court, obtain a reporter’s record.
• If the court takes no action, file a written request for ruling that specifically identifies the pending motion.
• Include all of those items in any later mandamus record as certified or sworn copies.

Proving Presentment in Family-Law Cases

• Use a certificate of conference or certificate of written presentment where appropriate.
• File a cover letter or transmittal clearly stating that the motion is being presented for ruling.
• File a notice that the motion was delivered to the court coordinator or chambers if local practice permits.
• Obtain a docket entry, hearing pass slip, or coordinator confirmation reflecting that the motion was placed before the court.
• Tender a proposed order contemporaneously with the motion or hearing request.
• Follow up in writing after any hearing cancellation or non-setting.

Avoiding the Relator’s Problem in Venue and Reinstatement Disputes

• For a motion to transfer venue, do not assume filing alone triggers appellate protection; affirmatively seek a setting or submission.
• For a motion to reinstate, act quickly and document every request for a prompt ruling.
• If emergency relief is needed, ensure the emergency request itself is file-stamped and included in the clerk’s record.
• Do not rely on unfiled drafts, informal emails, or documents appended to mandamus papers unless they were actually filed below or otherwise authenticated.
• Tie every request for action to a specific motion and requested ruling.

Building the Rule 52.7 Record

• Include certified or sworn copies of every material motion filed below.
• Include hearing notices, submission notices, coordinator correspondence, and proposed orders.
• Include proof that any request for ruling was filed in the trial court.
• Include docket sheets only as supplemental support, not as a substitute for proof of presentment.
• Include a reporter’s record of any oral presentment or oral request for ruling.
• Organize the appendix so the court can see chronology, presentment, and inaction without inference.

Office Procedures for Texas Family-Law Motion Practice

• Use a standard “presentment packet” for all dispositive or time-sensitive motions.
• Calendar follow-up dates for ruling requests after filing.
• Require written confirmation from staff when motions are sent to the coordinator or court.
• Save all email chains with the court in a dedicated appellate-preservation folder.
• Train lawyers and paralegals to distinguish between filing, setting, and presentment.
• Before filing mandamus, audit the record for proof of judicial awareness and demand for ruling.

Citation

In re Lisa Marie Clontz, No. 01-26-00396-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 28, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~9c186b71-f11d-4ccb-a196-4dfb116cb30e~~