Ninth Court of Appeals Denies Mandamus Relief in SAPCR Default Judgment Challenge

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 09-26-00031-CV, February 05, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 3 of Montgomery County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Ninth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate a default judgment in a SAPCR modification, holding that the Relator failed to demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion regarding the denial of disability accommodations. The court determined that the Relator’s general appearance in the case waived service of process complaints and that the Relator possessed an adequate remedy by appeal.

Relevance to Family Law

This case serves as a critical reminder for family law practitioners that a “default” judgment in a SAPCR context is not easily overturned by mandamus when the party has already made a general appearance. It highlights the evidentiary burden required to sustain a claim for disability accommodations—specifically, the need for a direct nexus between a medical condition and the inability to attend an in-person hearing. Furthermore, it reinforces the Beaumont court’s stance that procedural challenges to final orders in suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) must generally be addressed through the standard appellate process rather than extraordinary relief.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Relator Aaron Nicholas Thomas sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to vacate a final default judgment in a suit to modify the parent-child relationship. Thomas asserted that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for disability accommodations—specifically, a request to participate in the final hearing via Zoom. In support of his request, Thomas submitted a “Medical Release/Physician’s Statement” indicating that he could not climb stairs, kneel, stoop, or push. However, the same document noted that he was capable of sitting, standing, walking, and working on a keyboard for eight hours a day. The trial court proceeded with the hearing in person; Thomas did not attend, leading to the entry of a Default Order. Thomas further alleged that the order was entered without proper service of process.

Issues Decided

The court addressed three primary issues:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow remote participation as a disability accommodation.
2. Whether the lack of service of process constitutes a void judgment when the party has made a general appearance.
3. Whether the Relator established the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal for a final default judgment.

Rules Applied

The court applied the established mandamus standard from In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., requiring the Relator to prove a clear abuse of discretion and the absence of an adequate appellate remedy. It also relied on Brady v. Fourteenth Ct. of Appeals for the rule that appellate courts may not resolve disputed areas of fact in an original mandamus proceeding. Regarding the service of process issue, the court applied Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 124, which provides that judgment may be rendered against a defendant who has entered an appearance, even if they were not served with process.

Application

The court’s application of the law focused on the disconnect between the Relator’s medical evidence and his failure to appear. The court noted that the physician’s statement actually supported the Relator’s ability to participate in an in-person courtroom setting, as it affirmed his capacity to sit, stand, and walk for a full workday. The court further pointed to a photograph in the record depicting the Relator operating a stroller at the Houston Zoo shortly before the hearing, which undermined the claim of immobility. Consequently, there was no “clear abuse of discretion” in requiring in-person attendance. On the issue of service, the court found that the Default Order’s recital of a “general appearance” was dispositive; under Rule 124, once Thomas appeared in the case, any service defects became moot. Finally, the court noted that because the judgment was final, the Relator’s complaints regarding the evidence or the conduct of the trial could be fully addressed via a standard appeal.

Holding

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus. It held that the Relator failed to establish that his physical disability prevented him from appearing in person, and thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with the hearing.

The court further held that because the Relator had made a general appearance, the trial court maintained the authority to render judgment regardless of whether service of process was technically perfected.

Finally, the court held that an ordinary appeal provides an adequate remedy for challenging the merits and procedural underpinnings of a final default judgment in a SAPCR, precluding mandamus relief.

Practical Application

For the practitioner, this opinion emphasizes that “general appearances” are often the death knell for service-of-process challenges in mandamus. If a client intends to challenge service, they must avoid filing any document that seeks affirmative relief or acknowledges the court’s jurisdiction before the challenge is resolved. Additionally, when seeking accommodations under the ADA or the Texas Rules of Judicial Administration for a remote hearing, counsel must ensure the medical provider’s statement specifically addresses why the party cannot be physically present in the courtroom, rather than just listing general physical limitations.

Checklists

Evidentiary Requirements for Disability Accommodations

• Ensure the physician’s statement contains a specific “nexus” explaining why the party cannot travel to or sit in a courtroom.
• Review the physician’s statement for contradictory “capabilities” (e.g., the ability to sit or walk for eight hours) that might undermine the request for Zoom participation.
• Audit the client’s social media and recent public activities for evidence of mobility that may be used as rebuttal evidence by the opposing party or the court.

Responding to a Default Judgment Challenge

• Verify the judgment recitals for a finding of “general appearance” to invoke Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 124.
• Determine if the Relator has previously attempted mandamus; the “second bite at the apple” is frequently viewed with skepticism by the Ninth Court.
• Argue the adequacy of an ordinary appeal if the judgment is final and there are disputed fact issues regarding notice or disability.

Citation

In re Aaron Nicholas Thomas, No. 09-26-00031-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 5, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Click here for the full opinion

~~2af50d3e-a04e-41a1-9636-5358147fe7ee~~