NUMBER 13-23-00574-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE ALDO R. SANTOS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1 By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Aldo R. Santos contends that the trial court abused its discretion by determining that a premarital agreement was unconscionable and that “mandamus relief [is] warranted to avoid expensive and pointless litigation over issues controlled by the [premarital agreement].”

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by real party in interest Marlene Rico Villanueva, relator’s reply, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief.

Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice Delivered and filed on the 28th day of February, 2024.