Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2007

in Re: William E. McCormick, Jr.

in Re: William E. McCormick, Jr.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided October 25, 2007

in Re: William E. McCormick, Jr.

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 25, 2007

 

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 25, 2007.

 

 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-07-00712-CV

____________

 

IN RE WILLIAM E. McCORMICK, JR., Relator

 

 

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

 

 

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N


Relator William E. McCormick, Jr., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court complaining that the trial court lacked authority to issue a judgment nunc pro tunc ,that the  trial court=s clarification order improperly changed the substance of the original judgment, and that the trial court denied relator due process.  The trial court=s orders and judgment nunc pro tunc arise out of an action to enforce the property division made as part of relator=s divorce from the real party in interest.  See Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  In the petition, relator asked this court to compel the Honorable Roy Quintanilla, presiding judge of the County Court at Law Number Three of Galveston County, to set aside orders issued August 15, 2007, and August 22, 2007, entered in trial court cause number 02FD2412, styled In the Matter of the Marriage of Melissa McCormick and William E. McCormick, Jr., which ordered appellant to vacate the subject real property and appointed a receiver to sell the property.

Mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited circumstances.  See Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 684 (Tex. 1989).  Mandamus will issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion and, generally, only when the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy.  See In re Nitla S.A. de C.V., 92 S.W.3d 419, 422 (Tex. 2002).

Relator has not established that he is entitled to extraordinary relief.  Accordingly, we deny relator=s petition for writ of mandamus.  This court=s order of September 19, 2007, staying enforcement of the subject orders is vacated.

 

PER CURIAM

 

Petition Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 25, 2007.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Seymore.  (Frost, J. dissents and would grant mandamus relief.)

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.