Mandamus Delay: Two-Month Wait Is Not Unreasonable | In re Spurling (2026)

In re Dennis D. Spurling, 14-26-00955-CV, September 18, 2026.

On appeal from 387th District Court, Fort Bend County, Texas

Synopsis

A motion pending for less than two months ordinarily does not establish an unreasonable delay sufficient to warrant mandamus relief. Absent case-specific circumstances requiring a more expeditious ruling, the court of appeals will not compel the trial court to act merely because a properly filed motion remains unresolved for that period.

Relevance to Family Law

Timing disputes frequently arise in divorce, custody, and marital-property litigation, particularly when unresolved motions affect temporary orders, possession schedules, discovery, enforcement, expert access, or disposition of assets. In re Spurling confirms that mandamus is not an automatic remedy for a pending motion: family-law counsel must establish not only proper filing and presentment, but also a delay that is unreasonable under the particular circumstances. When immediate child-safety, financial, or property-preservation concerns require prompt action, the mandamus record should document those circumstances and demonstrate why the ordinary passage of time threatens concrete harm.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Dennis D. Spurling filed an “Opposed Motion for Entry of a Signed Written Order, Request That the Grounds for the Continuance Be Stated on the Record, Motion for Reconsideration, and Memorandum in Support” in the 387th District Court of Fort Bend County on July 29, 2026. The motion therefore combined several requests, including entry of a written order, a statement concerning the grounds for a continuance, and reconsideration.

Before two months had elapsed, Spurling filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. He asked the appellate court to compel the trial court to consider and rule on the unresolved portions of his motion. He also requested temporary relief.

The relevant record showed that the motion remained pending, but it did not demonstrate circumstances requiring an unusually prompt ruling. Nor did the duration of the pendency, standing alone, establish that the trial court had refused to perform its ministerial duty to consider and rule on a properly presented motion.

Issues Decided

• Whether the trial court’s failure to rule on a properly filed motion within less than two months constituted an unreasonable delay.

• Whether the record established a clear abuse of discretion sufficient to justify mandamus compelling the trial court to consider and rule.

• Whether the relator was entitled to temporary relief while the mandamus proceeding remained pending.

Rules Applied

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the relator establishes a clear abuse of discretion and the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–38 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).

To obtain mandamus relief based on a trial judge’s failure to perform a ministerial duty, a relator must show that the trial judge:

1. Had a legal duty to perform a nondiscretionary act;
2. Was asked to perform that act; and
3. Refused to do so.

See O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

A trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on motions that are properly filed, pending, and brought to the court’s attention. In re Coffey, No. 14-18-00124-CV, 2018 WL 1627592, at 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 5, 2018, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Mandamus may compel a ruling when the trial court fails to act within a reasonable time, although it generally cannot dictate how the court must rule. See In re Robbins*, 622 S.W.3d 600, 601 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

Whether a delay is unreasonable depends on the circumstances. The court relied on authorities holding that:

• A delay of less than three months is not ordinarily unreasonable. In re Sanchez, No. 03-25-01036-CV, 2025 WL 3775286, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 31, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

• Four- and five-month delays do not ordinarily constitute an unreasonable period for a motion to remain pending. In re Green, Nos. 03-16-00092-CV, 03-16-00150-CV, 2016 WL 1640078, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 19, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

• Absent circumstances demanding a more expeditious ruling, delays of four or six months do not necessarily become unreasonable. In re Halley, No. 03-15-00310-CV, 2015 WL 4448831, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin July 14, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Application

Spurling’s motion had been pending for less than two months when the Fourteenth Court addressed his petition. Although the trial court had a ministerial duty to consider and rule on a properly filed and presented motion, that duty did not mean the relator was entitled to a ruling on his preferred timetable.

The appellate court evaluated the elapsed time against decisions finding substantially longer periods ordinarily insufficient to establish unreasonable delay. Because less than two months had passed, the timing alone did not demonstrate that the trial court had refused to act or had clearly abused its discretion.

The record also failed to identify circumstances demanding a more expeditious ruling. Without evidence of urgency, imminent prejudice, or another case-specific reason why the motion required accelerated consideration, the relator could not convert the relatively brief delay into a basis for extraordinary relief.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion by failing to rule within the period shown by the record. The court denied both the mandamus petition and the related motions for temporary relief.

Holding

A motion pending for less than two months does not, without more, establish an unreasonable delay warranting mandamus relief. The reasonableness inquiry is contextual, but the relator’s record did not show circumstances requiring faster action.

The trial court therefore had not clearly abused its discretion by failing to rule during that period. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus.

The court also denied Spurling’s motions for temporary relief. Because the record did not support mandamus intervention, it likewise did not justify interim appellate relief.

Practical Application

Family-law litigators should treat Spurling as both a timing decision and a record-development decision. The mere existence of a pending motion does not establish that the trial court has refused to rule, particularly when only several weeks have elapsed. Before pursuing mandamus, counsel should create a clear record of filing, presentment, repeated requests for a ruling, and the particular prejudice caused by continued inaction.

In custody litigation, a request concerning immediate child safety, denial of possession, necessary medical treatment, or interference with conservatorship rights may support a need for expedited consideration. Counsel should identify the specific risk, attach competent evidence, request an emergency or preferential setting, and ensure that the request reaches the assigned judge. A conclusory assertion that a custody matter is urgent will be less persuasive than evidence showing imminent harm or the loss of a meaningful period of possession.

In divorce and property cases, urgency may arise when assets are being transferred, a business is deteriorating, insurance is about to lapse, foreclosure is imminent, or community funds are being dissipated. If mandamus may become necessary, the record should explain why a later ruling or ordinary appeal cannot remedy the threatened loss.

For discovery motions, motions to compel, and requests involving experts, counsel should connect the unresolved motion to existing scheduling deadlines. A pending discovery motion becomes more consequential when an expert-designation deadline, deposition date, mediation, or trial setting is approaching. The mandamus record should include the scheduling order and evidence that counsel sought a timely hearing before the deadline became critical.

Counsel should also distinguish between compelling a ruling and compelling a desired result. Mandamus may require a trial court to exercise its discretion, but it ordinarily may not dictate how that discretion must be exercised. A proposed mandamus prayer should therefore request that the trial court consider and rule, unless a separate legal basis establishes that only one ruling is permissible.

Finally, practitioners should avoid filing prematurely. A petition presented after only a short delay, without evidence of exceptional circumstances, risks denial under Spurling. Strategic escalation through the trial court—rather than immediate resort to mandamus—will usually produce a stronger record and may secure the ruling without appellate intervention.

Checklists

Establish That the Motion Is Properly Before the Court

• Confirm that the motion was filed under the correct cause number.
• Verify that the motion was accepted by the clerk and appears on the docket.
• Serve all parties in compliance with the applicable rules.
• Obtain a file-stamped copy of the motion.
• Request a hearing or submission date through the court’s required procedure.
• Confirm compliance with local rules and the court’s standing orders.
• Preserve communications showing that the court or court coordinator received the request.

Build a Record of Presentment

• Send a written request for a hearing or ruling.
• Identify the motion by title and filing date.
• Follow up at reasonable intervals rather than relying on a single request.
• Ask whether the court requires an oral hearing, written submission, or proposed order.
• File a formal request for submission or ruling when appropriate.
• Include all presentment materials in any mandamus appendix or record.
• Avoid relying solely on undocumented telephone calls.

Document the Need for Expedited Action

• Identify the specific deadline, event, or harm that makes prompt action necessary.
• Explain why ordinary scheduling is inadequate.
• Provide evidence of immediate child-safety concerns when applicable.
• Document threatened dissipation, foreclosure, asset transfer, or interruption of insurance.
• Include relevant temporary orders, scheduling orders, and trial settings.
• Explain how continued delay will impair a substantive right or prevent meaningful appellate relief.
• Request an expedited hearing in the trial court before seeking extraordinary relief.

Evaluate Whether the Delay Is Unreasonable

• Calculate the exact period the motion has been pending.
• Determine when the motion was first brought to the judge’s attention.
• Account for supplemental filings, amended motions, and requested continuances.
• Consider the complexity of the motion and the size of the record.
• Determine whether the court has taken the matter under advisement.
• Identify any circumstances distinguishing the case from Spurling, Sanchez, Green, and Halley.
• Avoid treating the passage of less than two months as sufficient by itself.

Prepare a Mandamus Record

• Include a certified or sworn copy of the pending motion.
• Include proof of filing and service.
• Include hearing requests, submission requests, and follow-up communications.
• Include docket sheets and relevant reporter’s records.
• Include evidence establishing urgency and imminent prejudice.
• Show that the trial judge, not merely the clerk or coordinator, was asked to act.
• Explain why appeal is not an adequate remedy.
• Request an order compelling a ruling rather than a particular outcome, unless the law permits no discretion.

Avoid Premature Mandamus

• Exhaust reasonable trial-court procedures for obtaining a setting or ruling.
• Give the court a reasonable opportunity to consider the motion.
• Confirm that no ruling has already been made orally or by docket entry.
• Assess whether the urgency is supported by evidence rather than advocacy alone.
• Consider whether a short motion for status conference would resolve the problem.
• Do not assume that filing a motion automatically proves presentment.
• Do not rely solely on elapsed time when the delay is measured in weeks.

Citation

In re Dennis D. Spurling, No. 14-26-00955-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 18, 2026, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion.

~~0b9b257a-de4d-4342-9077-a4acb4f7b0a2~~