NUMBER 13-25-00362-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE REJEANA LEATHERWOOD

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1 This original proceeding arises from an estate dispute. Relator Rejeana Leatherwood has filed a second amended pro se petition for writ of mandamus through which she asserts that the trial court lacks jurisdiction; the trial court erred in granting spousal status to Irma Ramirez; the trial court unlawfully permitted foreclosure; the dependent administrator of the decedent’s estate breached his fiduciary duty; the judge

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). of the trial court should be recused; and the trial court erred by failing to appoint relator as a successor administrator. Relator seeks emergency relief to stay foreclosure proceedings.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding).

Alternatively, when “a trial court issues an order ‘beyond its jurisdiction,’ mandamus relief is appropriate because such an order is void ab initio.” In re Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding)). In such circumstances, the relator need not show it lacks an adequate appellate remedy. See In re Vaishangi, Inc., 442 S.W.3d 256, 261 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d at 605.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the second amended petition for writ of mandamus, the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the request for emergency relief.

JON WEST Justice

Delivered and filed on the 22nd day of July, 2025.