In re Sandra Ramirez, 08-25-00252-CV, June 03, 2026.
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Synopsis
Rule 87 means what it says: a motion to transfer venue cannot be granted unless the movant obtains a setting and the parties receive the required notice and hearing. When a trial court signs a transfer order without a documented setting, notice, and hearing, the order is procedurally defective and mandamus is the proper remedy.
Relevance to Family Law
This opinion has immediate relevance in Texas divorce, SAPCR, modification, enforcement, and property litigation because venue fights often shape the entire trajectory of the case. Whether the dispute concerns the county of filing in a divorce, a transfer effort tied to parallel litigation, or a strategic venue contest in post-decree proceedings, In re Sandra Ramirez reinforces that venue cannot be shifted by informal practice, off-record status conferences, or purported submission settings unsupported by the record. For family-law litigators, the case is a useful procedural weapon and a cautionary directive: if an opposing party wants transfer, they must build a Rule 87-compliant record; if the court transfers without that process, mandamus should be on the table immediately.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Sandra Ramirez sought mandamus relief after the trial court transferred venue of the underlying proceeding from El Paso County to Kaufman County. The real party in interest, Cold Way Transportation, LLC, had filed a motion to transfer venue in April 2025. Although the movant apparently attempted to request a setting, the mandamus record did not show that the trial court ever actually set the motion for hearing.
Despite that absence, the trial court signed an order on October 9, 2025 granting the transfer. In response to the mandamus petition, the real party argued that the court had effectively set the matter during a September 8, 2025 status conference and had heard the venue issue “by submission.” The court of appeals found those assertions unsupported by competent proof. The certified register of actions reflected no setting and no hearing on the transfer motion, and nothing in the mandamus record substantiated the claimed off-record procedural history.
That record gap mattered because Rule 87 gives the movant the duty to obtain a setting and entitles the parties, absent leave of court, to at least 45 days’ notice of the hearing. The court emphasized that those procedural protections are not trivial; they preserve the responding party’s ability to amend pleadings and prepare a proper venue response before the court rules.
Issues Decided
- Whether Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 87 permits a trial court to grant a motion to transfer venue without first setting the motion and providing the required notice and hearing.
- Whether an asserted ruling “by submission,” unsupported by competent evidence in the record, satisfies Rule 87.
- Whether mandamus is the proper remedy when a trial court transfers venue without complying with Rule 87’s procedural requirements.
- Whether the relator failed to preserve error by not objecting or moving for continuance when the record showed no hearing was ever set.
Rules Applied
The court relied primarily on Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 87 and the Texas Supreme Court’s mandamus precedent enforcing that rule.
- Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 87.1: the movant has the duty to request a setting on the motion to transfer venue.
- Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 87.3(b): absent leave of court, each party is entitled to at least 45 days’ notice of the hearing on the motion to transfer.
- Henderson v. O’Neill, 797 S.W.2d 905 (Tex. 1990): mandamus is appropriate when the trial court fails to comply with Rule 87’s procedural requirements.
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004): mandamus requires a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy.
- In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016): the relator bears the burden to show entitlement to mandamus relief.
- In re Hesseltine, No. 13-25-00256-CV, 2025 WL 1819777 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg July 1, 2025, orig. proceeding): Rule 87’s notice requirement matters because parties may amend venue-related pleadings before the hearing.
- In re Rino-K&K Compression, Inc., 656 S.W.3d 153 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2022, orig. proceeding): Rule 87 requires notice and a hearing before prompt determination of the motion.
- Moore v. W. Bend Energy Partners, LLC, No. 08-23-00180-CV, 2024 WL 5239901 (Tex. App.—El Paso Dec. 27, 2024, pet. denied): a docket sheet may serve as some evidence that an event did or did not occur on a particular date.
Application
The Eighth Court of Appeals treated the case as a straightforward Rule 87 enforcement problem. The dispositive question was not whether the transferee county might ultimately be proper, but whether the transfer order was entered through the procedure the rules require. On that question, the record was fatal to the transfer.
The court began with Rule 87’s text. The movant must obtain a setting, and the court must provide notice of the hearing. Those requirements are tied to the structure of venue practice, including the nonmovant’s right to amend in advance of the hearing. The rule contemplates an actual setting, an actual notice period, and an actual hearing before the court determines the motion.
Here, the real party attempted to salvage the order by representing that the trial court announced at a status conference that it would hear the motion by submission. But the court of appeals refused to treat attorney assertions as record evidence. Nothing in the mandamus record corroborated the claimed submission setting. To the contrary, the certified register of actions showed no hearing had been set or held. On that record, the appellate court concluded the trial court ruled without satisfying Rule 87.
The preservation argument failed for the same reason. The real party contended Ramirez should have objected or sought a continuance. But that premise assumes there was a hearing setting that triggered an obligation to complain. Because the record showed no setting at all, there was no procedural event for Ramirez to challenge in the trial court before the transfer order appeared. The appellate court therefore treated the absence of Rule 87 compliance as a mandamus-level defect.
Holding
The court held that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 87 requires the movant to obtain a setting and requires the trial court to provide notice and a hearing before ruling on a motion to transfer venue. A transfer order entered without those procedural steps is an abuse of discretion.
The court also held that unsupported assertions about what supposedly occurred during a status conference do not constitute competent proof of compliance with Rule 87. Where the mandamus record does not document a setting or hearing, and the docket materials indicate none occurred, the appellate court will not presume compliance.
Finally, the court held that mandamus is the proper remedy. Consistent with Henderson v. O’Neill, the court conditionally granted mandamus and directed the trial court to vacate its order transferring venue.
Practical Application
For family-law litigators, this case should alter how you handle venue contests in both offensive and defensive postures. If you are moving to transfer venue in a divorce, SAPCR, modification, or related property dispute, do not assume that filing the motion and mentioning it at a status conference is enough. Get a clear setting. Confirm that notice satisfying Rule 87 appears in the record. Make sure the clerk’s file, docket, notice, and any hearing transcript all align. If the court wants to proceed “by submission,” do not rely on an informal announcement; create a written order or notice reflecting the submission setting and the notice period, or you are inviting mandamus.
On the defensive side, this opinion gives you a clean appellate framework when an opponent obtains a transfer through loose docket management. In family cases, venue mistakes are especially consequential because they can affect temporary-orders strategy, local practice differences, mediation leverage, access to witnesses, and the pace of emergency relief. If the transfer order was signed without a Rule 87-compliant setting and notice, the merits of venue may be secondary; the procedural defect itself may justify mandamus.
The case also highlights a practical records point that matters in busy family courts. Many venue discussions occur in scheduling conferences, chambers announcements, or non-evidentiary settings. If the court indicates that a venue issue will be taken up later, confirm on the record what is being set, when it is being set, and how notice will issue. If you represent the nonmovant, ask that the setting be memorialized. If you represent the movant, do not leave the courthouse assuming an oral mention equals a Rule 87 setting.
In modification and enforcement practice, where venue transfers can be outcome-determinative and timing-sensitive, Ramirez can be used to stop an opponent from fast-tracking a transfer before you can amend, supplement affidavits, or develop the facts needed to resist transfer. The opinion is especially useful where the other side tries to convert a status hearing into a merits ruling on venue without formal notice.
Checklists
Movant’s Rule 87 Compliance Checklist
- File the motion to transfer venue promptly and ensure it is properly served.
- Request an actual setting rather than assuming the court will sua sponte set the motion.
- Obtain written confirmation of the hearing or submission date.
- Confirm that the notice period complies with Rule 87.3(b), absent leave of court.
- Make sure the setting appears in the docket, notice, or written order.
- If the court intends to hear the motion by submission, obtain a written submission setting and ensure the record reflects it.
- Verify that all venue affidavits, pleadings, and responses are on file before the hearing or submission date.
- Create a reporter’s record or equivalent documentation if any oral proceedings address the venue motion.
Nonmovant’s Venue Defense Checklist
- Review whether the movant actually obtained a Rule 87 setting.
- Calculate whether the notice provided complies with the required time under Rule 87.
- Consider amended pleadings or supplemental venue materials before the hearing deadline.
- Request a record of any status conference where venue is discussed.
- If the court appears inclined to rule without a proper setting, object on Rule 87 grounds.
- If the court signs a transfer order without notice and hearing, evaluate mandamus immediately.
- Include the docket sheet, notices, clerk’s record, and any transcripts in the mandamus record.
- Frame the issue as a procedural abuse of discretion under Henderson, not merely a disagreement about proper venue.
Family Law Hearing-Management Checklist
- In divorce or SAPCR cases, separate venue settings from temporary-orders or scheduling hearings unless clearly noticed.
- Confirm whether the court is hearing venue live, by submission, or not at all.
- Do not let an ambiguous docket-control conference become the basis for a venue ruling.
- Ask the court coordinator for written confirmation of the setting.
- Ensure your client understands the strategic effect of a venue change on hearings, discovery, and settlement posture.
- Preserve all communications reflecting whether notice was or was not given.
- In emergency family matters, resist efforts to use procedural urgency as a substitute for Rule 87 compliance.
Mandamus Record Checklist
- Include the motion to transfer venue.
- Include any responses, affidavits, amended pleadings, and notices.
- Include the signed transfer order.
- Include the certified docket sheet or register of actions.
- Include transcripts from status conferences or hearings, if any exist.
- Include correspondence or notices showing the absence of a setting, if relevant.
- Cite Henderson v. O’Neill and Rule 87.1 and 87.3(b) directly.
- Explain why no adequate appellate remedy exists once the case is transferred.
Citation
In re Sandra Ramirez, No. 08-25-00252-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—El Paso June 3, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
The strategic value of Ramirez in family litigation is substantial because venue often drives case dynamics more than the merits lawyers are willing to admit. In a divorce, one side may try to relocate the fight to a county perceived as more favorable on temporary orders, jury pools, scheduling speed, or local judicial preferences. In a custody or modification dispute, a transfer may affect access to school records, counselors, child witnesses, and the practical burden of appearing for repeated hearings. Ramirez gives family lawyers a precise procedural attack: if the other side secures transfer without a Rule 87-compliant setting, notice, and hearing, the transfer is vulnerable regardless of how strongly the other side argues the destination county is substantively proper.
It can also be weaponized more affirmatively. If you represent the resisting party, insist on strict compliance with Rule 87 to buy the time the rules contemplate for amended pleadings, additional affidavits, and strategic development of the venue record. If your opponent tries to smuggle a venue ruling into a status conference, a temporary-orders setting, or an undocumented submission process, Ramirez supplies authority to stop the move or unwind it by mandamus. The larger lesson is that venue procedure is not housekeeping; in family law, it is leverage.
~~488c05bd-049e-48fd-8e42-c11708213bb1~~
Share this content: