Mandamus Denied: Relator Fails to Establish Right to Compel Trial Court Ruling

In re Curtis Johnson, 04-26-00105-CV, March 04, 2026.

On appeal from the 224th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Fourth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus because the Relator failed to establish a clear legal right to compel a trial court ruling when the request had been pending for only ten days. The court held that such a brief interval does not constitute a failure to perform a ministerial act within a reasonable time under Texas law.

Relevance to Family Law

In the high-stakes environment of divorce and child custody litigation, practitioners often face frustration when a trial court takes a matter under advisement without an immediate ruling. However, this case underscores that the appellate courts will not use mandamus as a tool for docket management or to reward litigation impatience. For family law litigators, the takeaway is clear: before seeking extraordinary relief to compel a ruling on temporary orders, property division clarifications, or enforcement motions, counsel must ensure they have allowed a “reasonable” period to elapse and have built a record that the trial court was asked to rule and failed to do so despite that passage of time.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

This original proceeding arose from a dissolution of marriage action pending in the 224th Judicial District Court of Bexar County. On January 30, 2026, the Relator filed a formal request for a ruling in the underlying proceeding. Dissatisfied with the lack of an immediate response, the Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Fourth Court of Appeals on February 9, 2026—exactly ten days after the initial request was submitted. The Relator sought an order compelling the trial court to issue a ruling, but provided no evidence that the trial court had expressly refused to rule or that the ten-day period was unreasonable under the specific circumstances of the case.

Issues Decided

Whether a trial court abuses its discretion by failing to rule on a pending request within a ten-day window, thereby warranting mandamus relief to compel a ministerial act.

Rules Applied

The Court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a), which requires the denial of a petition if the court determines the relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Under established Texas mandamus jurisprudence, a relator seeking to compel a ruling must demonstrate that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to perform a ministerial act; (2) was asked to perform the act; and (3) failed or refused to do so within a reasonable time.

Application

The Court’s analysis centered on the “reasonable time” requirement inherent in mandamus proceedings involving judicial inaction. The Relator’s timeline—filing for mandamus only ten days after requesting a ruling—fell far short of the threshold required to show a clear abuse of discretion. The Court looked to the burden of proof placed on the Relator to establish a clear legal right to the relief requested. Because the record showed only a brief ten-day lapse, the appellate court could not conclude that the trial court had abdicated its ministerial duty. The narrative of the case suggests that the Relator jumped the gun, failing to allow the trial court sufficient latitude to manage its own docket and consider the requested ruling in the ordinary course of business.

Holding

The Fourth Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus. The court determined that the Relator failed to meet the burden of establishing that the trial court’s failure to rule within ten days constituted an actionable delay or a refusal to act.

The denial was issued per curiam, noting that the Relator had not established entitlement to the relief requested under the standards set forth in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Practical Application

For the family law practitioner, this case serves as a strategic reminder that “reasonable time” for a trial court to rule is never defined by a mere ten-day window. When a ruling is delayed on a critical issue like temporary orders or a motion for new trial, counsel should avoid filing for mandamus prematurely. Instead, use that early window to send a polite inquiry to the court coordinator and file a formal “Request for Ruling” that details the urgency of the matter. If the court remains silent for 30 to 60 days despite these efforts, the “reasonable time” argument becomes significantly more persuasive to an appellate panel.

Checklists

Establishing a “Reasonable Time” for Mandamus

• File a formal written request for a ruling to ensure the trial court is aware the matter is pending.
• Document all efforts to contact the court coordinator or the court’s staff regarding the status of the order.
• Compare the delay to the complexity of the issues; property valuations or complex custody schedules may justify longer deliberation than simple discovery motions.
• Wait for a period that exceeds the standard administrative delay (generally at least 30 days) before drafting the petition for writ of mandamus.

Avoiding Procedural Denial under TRAP 52

• Ensure the mandamus record includes a certified copy of the motion or request that remains pending.
• Include proof that the request for a ruling was actually brought to the attention of the trial judge, not just filed with the District Clerk.
• Explicitly state in the petition the date the motion was filed, the date of any hearing, and the specific efforts made to obtain a ruling before seeking appellate intervention.

Citation

In re Curtis Johnson, No. 04-26-00105-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 4, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

~~e2eac563-be33-48c0-a0b3-f519c8ac193e~~