Silence is Not a Refusal: Why Family Law Practitioners Must Prove ‘Actual Knowledge’ to Win Mandamus for a Failure to Rule
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina, 13-26-00130-CR, February 06, 2026.
Synopsis
To obtain mandamus relief for a trial court’s failure to rule on a pending motion, a relator must provide a record establishing that the trial court was actually aware of the filing and was specifically asked to rule. This opinion clarifies that merely filing a document with the district clerk does not impute knowledge to the trial court nor does it satisfy the requirement that a ruling was formally requested and refused.
Relevance to Family Law
While this case arises in the criminal context, the procedural requirements for mandamus regarding a trial court’s failure to act are identical in civil and family law litigation. In high-conflict divorce or SAPCR (Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship) cases, practitioners often face “docket paralysis” where a judge may sit on a motion for temporary orders, a motion to compel discovery, or a motion for attorney’s fees. In re Lerma serves as a stark reminder that an attorney cannot simply “file and wait” and then seek appellate intervention. You must proactively create a record of the court’s awareness and your subsequent request for a ruling to ripen the issue for mandamus.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Jose Raquel Lerma filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus against the judge of County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County. Lerma alleged that the trial court failed to timely rule on his “Notice of Place of Imprisonment and Speedy Trial Demand.” While Lerma had indeed filed these documents in the underlying criminal cases, the record presented to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals was notably thin regarding the trial court’s actual engagement with those filings. There was no evidence that the trial court was ever made aware of the demand or that Lerma had taken subsequent steps to bring the matter to the judge’s attention for a specific ruling after the initial filing with the clerk.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether a relator is entitled to mandamus relief for a trial court’s failure to rule on a motion when the record fails to demonstrate that the trial court was aware of the motion or was asked to rule on it.
Rules Applied
The Court applied the standard mandamus threshold: the relator must show a ministerial duty to act and the absence of an adequate remedy at law. Specifically, for a “failure to rule,” the Court applied a three-prong test: (1) the trial court had a legal duty to rule; (2) the court was asked to rule; and (3) the court failed or refused to rule within a reasonable time. The Court relied on established precedent—including In re Gomez and In re Pete—which holds that filing a document with a district clerk does not impute knowledge of that filing to the trial court.
Application
The Court’s application of the law focused on the bridge between the clerk’s office and the judge’s chambers. The Court reasoned that because the relator has the burden of providing a sufficient record, the absence of evidence showing the trial court’s awareness was fatal. The Court observed that a clerk’s knowledge is not the judge’s knowledge. To trigger a ministerial duty, the relator must show that the motion was “submitted” to the court. Because Lerma’s record only showed the filing with the clerk and provided no evidence of a request for a hearing or a letter to the court coordinator requesting a ruling, the Court could not conclude that a “reasonable time” for ruling had even begun to run, much less that the trial court had refused to act.
Holding
The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus.
The Court held that the relator failed to meet the burden of showing entitlement to extraordinary relief. Specifically, the Court held that a trial court cannot be found to have abused its discretion by failing to rule unless the record demonstrates the court was actually aware of the motion and was asked to rule on it.
Practical Application
This ruling is a cautionary tale for family law litigators who rely on e-filing to do the heavy lifting. In many Texas counties, a motion filed via the e-filing system may never cross the judge’s desk unless the attorney or the court coordinator takes an affirmative step to put it there. To safeguard your client’s right to a timely ruling, you must transition from a “filer” to a “submitter.” This means following up filing with a formal request for a hearing, a letter to the court coordinator, or a “Request for Ruling” that is specifically brought to the court’s attention during a docket call.
Checklists
Establishing the Mandamus Record
- Verify the Filing: Ensure the motion is properly filed and the “file-mark” is visible.
- Formal Request for Ruling: File a separate document titled “Request for Ruling” or “Request for Setting” to create a clear paper trail of your efforts.
- Coordinate with the Staff: Maintain a log of emails or phone calls to the court coordinator requesting that the motion be presented to the judge.
- Proposed Orders: Ensure a proposed order was filed and, if possible, delivered to the court’s chambers (subject to local rules).
Avoiding the “Clerk-Only” Trap
- Do Not Rely on E-Service: Do not assume the judge sees the e-service notification sent to the clerk.
- Check Local Rules: Many courts require a physical courtesy copy or a specific email to the staff to “submit” a motion for a ruling.
- Record of Hearings: If the court refuses to set a hearing, ensure that the refusal is documented via a court reporter or a written response from the court’s staff.
Citation
In re Jose Raquel Lerma, Nos. 13-26-00129-CR, 13-26-00130-CR, 13-26-00131-CR, 13-26-00132-CR (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 6, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In Texas divorce and custody litigation, delay is often used as a weapon. An opposing party may file a motion for a protective order or a motion to stay discovery and then never set it for a hearing, effectively “chilling” the litigation. Conversely, if you are the party seeking relief and the court is sitting on your motion, In re Lerma provides the roadmap for your opponent to defeat your mandamus. If you haven’t “asked” the court to rule in a way that is documented in the record, your opponent can successfully argue that the trial court hasn’t “refused” to rule.
Strategically, if you are defending against a potential mandamus for delay, check the record for a formal “Request for Ruling.” If all the other side has is a file-stamped motion and no evidence of communication with the court, the mandamus is dead on arrival under the Lerma standard. For the practitioner seeking to move a case forward, you must “weaponize” your correspondence—every email to the coordinator should be drafted with the understanding that it will be Exhibit A in your mandamus record to prove the court’s awareness and its subsequent failure to act.
~~15e9196e-5dd9-475b-b5f4-1a74bfbc6109~~
Share this content:
