Dallas Court Denies Mandamus for Missing TRAP 52.3(k) Certification and No Showing of Abuse

In re Nicholas David Kiselov, 05-26-00421-CV, March 26, 2026.

On appeal from 303rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Synopsis

The Dallas Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief where the relator’s petition omitted the mandatory TRAP 52.3(k) certification—an independently sufficient basis to deny. The court also held, alternatively, that the relator failed to satisfy the two core mandamus prerequisites: a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy under Prudential.

Relevance to Family Law

This opinion is a procedural gut-check for Texas family-law litigators who use mandamus to address trial-court management decisions in real time—particularly post-judgment skirmishes (e.g., enforcement, clarification, jurisdictional disputes, disqualification, and discovery orders with privilege implications). In family cases, mandamus is often pursued on compressed timelines and messy records; Kiselov underscores that even an arguable substantive complaint will not be reached if the petition is not rule-compliant, and that “findings after a hearing” disputes frequently fail the Prudential “no adequate remedy by appeal” requirement unless the record and relief theory are tightly built.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Fifth Court of Appeals arising from a Dallas County family case (trial court cause no. DF-19-23225). The complained-of conduct was the trial court’s failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law after a January 15, 2026 post-judgment hearing on two motions: a Motion for Jurisdictional Production and a Motion to Disqualify.

The mandamus petition was filed March 24, 2026. The court’s opinion focuses on two threshold deficiencies: (1) the petition omitted the certification required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k) that the relator reviewed the petition and confirmed every factual statement is supported by competent evidence in the appendix or record; and (2) even if the petition were procedurally compliant, the relator did not carry the substantive mandamus burden to show a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy.

Issues Decided

• Whether a mandamus petition may be denied for failure to include the mandatory TRAP 52.3(k) certification.
• Whether the relator established entitlement to mandamus relief by showing (a) a clear abuse of discretion and (b) no adequate remedy by appeal under In re Prudential.
• In the context presented, whether mandamus relief was available to compel findings of fact and conclusions of law after a post-judgment hearing.

Rules Applied

• TRAP 52.3(k): Requires a certification that the relator reviewed the petition and concluded every factual statement is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. The Fifth Court treated the omission as a stand-alone basis to deny mandamus relief.
• TRAP 52.8(a): Authorizes denial of mandamus relief when the relator is not entitled to the relief sought.
• In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding): Mandamus requires both (1) a clear abuse of discretion and (2) no adequate remedy by appeal.
• In re Integrity Mktg Grp., LLC, No. 05-24-00922-CV, 2024 WL 3770377, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 13, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.): Cited for the proposition that the Fifth Court will deny mandamus based solely on the absence of the TRAP 52.3 certification.

Application

The court began where appellate courts increasingly begin in accelerated original proceedings: rule compliance. Because the relator did not include the TRAP 52.3(k) certification, the petition was defective at the threshold. The court expressly held that this defect, standing alone, justified denial—citing its own recent precedent denying mandamus solely for that omission.

The opinion then proceeded “additionally and alternatively” to the merits framework. Applying Prudential, the court reviewed the petition and the record as filed and concluded the relator did not demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. Although the complained-of conduct was the absence of findings of fact and conclusions of law following a post-judgment hearing, the court found the relator failed to establish the two essential elements: a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal. The court’s analysis is brief, but the message is strategic: even if you fix the form, you still must prove the mandamus elements with a record that makes appellate inadequacy concrete—not assumed.

Holding

The court denied mandamus relief because the petition did not contain the mandatory TRAP 52.3(k) certification. The Fifth Court treated that omission as an independent, sufficient ground to deny the petition without reaching the requested relief.

Separately and alternatively, the court denied mandamus because the relator failed to show a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy under In re Prudential. On the record presented, the relator did not carry the burden to justify extraordinary relief compelling the trial court to issue findings and conclusions after the post-judgment hearing.

Practical Application

Texas family-law mandamus practice frequently arises in post-decree litigation—discovery fights over sensitive records, jurisdictional challenges, recusal/disqualification disputes, enforcement remedies, and procedural rulings that affect a party’s ability to fairly litigate. Kiselov is a reminder that, in Dallas in particular, you should treat TRAP 52 as a strict compliance regime, not a “substantial compliance” exercise.

A few family-law scenarios where this opinion should change how you litigate:

• Post-judgment hearings (enforcement/clarification/jurisdiction): If you intend to seek mandamus based on the absence of findings or a failure to rule, build a record that shows (1) a legal duty to act, (2) a request and refusal/failure, and (3) why an appeal is not an adequate cure. Do not assume the court will infer appellate inadequacy merely because the ruling is post-judgment or time-sensitive.
• Disqualification/recusal-adjacent disputes: When the complained-of ruling affects who decides the case, litigators often jump to mandamus quickly. This case highlights that speed cannot come at the expense of a compliant petition and a competent record; otherwise, you may lose the only window for meaningful relief.
• Compressed deadlines and “record gaps” common in family cases: Temporary orders, post-decree hearings, and short-notice discovery disputes often generate incomplete reporter’s records and thin appendices. TRAP 52.3(k) forces you to align every factual assertion with competent evidence—something you should treat as a drafting discipline, not a closing formality.
• Findings of fact requests: If your strategy depends on findings (for later appellate framing, for issue preservation, or for clarifying the basis of a ruling), assume the mandamus path will be scrutinized under Prudential and prepare to explain—specifically—why ordinary appellate review is inadequate in your procedural posture.

Checklists

TRAP 52 Petition “No-Denial” Compliance

• Include the TRAP 52.3(k) certification verbatim in substance: relator reviewed the petition and every factual statement is supported by competent evidence in the appendix/record
• Confirm the certification is signed by counsel (and formatted as part of the petition)
• Audit the petition so each factual assertion has a pinpoint cite to an appendix/tab or mandamus record exhibit
• Ensure the appendix/record contains competent evidence (file-stamped pleadings, signed orders, certified documents, sworn declarations where appropriate)
• Verify TRAP 52 requirements for identity of parties, table of contents, statement of facts, issues presented, and argument are satisfied before filing

Mandamus Record Building in Post-Judgment Family Hearings

• Obtain and file the signed order (or a clear docket entry) showing what the court did or refused to do
• Include the request for findings (and any notice/past-due notice), with file stamps
• Include proof the trial court had the request and failed/refused to act (hearing transcript excerpts, correspondence, submission emails, docket sheet, clerk’s notices)
• Secure the reporter’s record from the hearing at issue (especially if oral rulings matter)
• Attach key exhibits presented to the court that inform the requested findings/conclusions

Proving “No Adequate Remedy by Appeal” Under Prudential (Family-Law Framing)

• Identify the specific harm that cannot be cured on appeal (loss of rights, irreparable prejudice, disclosure of protected info, jurisdictional consequence, inability to develop the record)
• Tie the harm to the procedural posture (post-judgment enforcement timelines, child-related immediacy, jurisdictional deadlines, collateral consequences)
• Explain why an appeal would be too late or ineffective, not merely inconvenient
• Address whether alternative remedies exist (motion to compel ruling, motion for entry of findings, motion for reconsideration, request for submission, agreed order)
• Present a record that demonstrates the problem is present and real, not speculative

Citation

In re Nicholas David Kiselov, No. 05-26-00421-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 26, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~6283baa0-575e-430c-899e-c112c38ea099~~