Opinion
NO. 14-20-00757-CV
11-24-2020
IN RE ESTATE OF CHARLES R. BURNETT III, ET AL., Relators
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS
165th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2019-81060
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 10, 2020, relators Estate of Charles R. Burnett III, et al. (the "Estate") filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, the Estate asks this court to compel the Honorable Ursula Hall, presiding judge of the 165th District Court of Harris County, to rule on the Estate's motion to transfer the files in Cause No. 2019-81060, Steven Coe Wilson, et. al. v. Boyert Shooting Center - Katy, LLC, et. al to Probate Court Number One, Harris County, under Texas Estates Code section 34.00 (the "Motion to Transfer"). The Motion to Transfer was submitted to Judge Hall more than five months ago. We conditionally grant the requested relief.
BACKGROUND
The Estate filed its Motion to Transfer on May 20, 2020 and it was submitted to Judge Hall on June 1, 2020. The Estate made several requests via e-mail and letter to the court's clerk for a ruling on the Motion to Transfer. On September 3, 2020, the real party in interest, Steven Coe Wilson, filed a Joinder to the Estate's Motion to Transfer. Thus, all parties agree to the Motion to Transfer. Yet, Judge Hall still has not ruled.
MANDAMUS STANDARD
A trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on motions properly filed and submitted to the trial court for ruling, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. See In re Coffey, No. 14-18-00124-CV, 2018 WL 1627592, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 5, 2018, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.); In re Nomarco, Inc., No. 14-20-00129-CV, 2020 WL 1181705, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 12, 2020, ) (per curiam) (mem. op.). A trial court is required to rule on a motion within a reasonable time after the motion has been submitted to the court for a ruling. See id. The record must show both that the motion was submitted to the trial court for ruling and that the trial court has not ruled on the motion within a reasonable time. See id.
ANALYSIS
Drawing on precedent, we look to two recent decisions to guide our determination as to what constitutes a reasonable time rule. In In re Coffey, No. 14-18-00124-CV, 2018 WL 1627592, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 5, 2018, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.), our court held that Judge Hall abused her discretion by failing to rule on an unopposed motion to confirm arbitration award that had been pending for approximately four months, where the motion was unopposed and the delay in ruling was causing substantial harm. Also, in In re Harris County Appraisal Dist., No. 14-19-00078-CV, 2019 WL 1716274, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 18, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), our court held that Judge Hall's six-month delay in ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction was unreasonable and an abuse of discretion.
The record shows that more than five months have passed since the Motion to Transfer was submitted to Judge Hall and that the Estate has made several attempts to obtain a ruling. The record does not show any special circumstances that would justify the court's delay in ruling. The issue presented by the Motion to Transfer is not complicated and all the parties agree to the motion. In these circumstances, Judge Hall's more than five-month delay in ruling on the Motion is unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of discretion.
CONCLUSION
We conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct Judge Hall to rule on the Motion to Transfer no later than December 11, 2020.
We stand confident that Judge Hall will act in accordance with this opinion. The writ of mandamus shall issue only if she fails to do so.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Poissant.