PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS Co Civil Ct at Law No 1 Harris
County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1091333
consists of Justices Boyce, Donovan, and Jewell.
underlying proceeding is forcible detainer suit to gain
possession of real property. Relator is Invum Three, LLC, who
is the plaintiff below. Real party-in-interest is Ronald T.
Ricks, who is defendant below (Ricks).
7, 2017, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in
this court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §
22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In
the petition, Relator asks this court to compel the Honorable
George Barnstone, presiding judge of the County Civil Court
at Law No. 1 of Harris County, to vacate his May 5, 2017
order staying execution of a writ of possession signed on May
conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus.
Factual and Procedural Background
January 26, 2015, Ricks executed a deed of trust
collateralizing property known as 20334 Bishops Gate,
Houston, Texas for the repayment of a loan. On December 6,
2016, a creditor foreclosed on the subject property. Relator
purchased the property at the foreclosure sale.
brought the underlying eviction suit by filing a complaint
with the Harris County Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4,
Place 1. At the trial, the Justice Court ruled in
Relator's favor. Ricks appealed to the County Court for a
trial de novo. Trial was held on April 18, 2017, but Ricks
failed to appear. At trial, Relator presented documentary and
testimonial evidence, and upon the close of evidence the
County Court rendered judgment awarding Relator possession of
April 26, 2017, Relator requested and paid for a writ of
possession from the county clerk. On May 1, 2017, the clerk
issued the writ of possession. On or about May 4, 2017, a
Harris County Deputy Constable posted the writ of possession
at the subject property. The same day, Ricks filed a motion
to stay the writ of possession or alternatively to recall the
writ of possession, and filed a motion for new trial.
following day, on May 5, 2017, the trial court held a hearing
on the motion to recall the writ of possession, and signed an
order staying the writ of possession. Additionally, the court
ordered the Constable to not set the lockout date, and to
hold the writ in the Constable's possession, until
further instructions from the court. The motion for new trial
obtain mandamus relief, a relator generally must show both
that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that
relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124,
135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly
abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary
and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial
error of law or if it clearly fails to analyze the law
correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. In re
Cerberus Capital Mgmt. L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex.
2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The appellate court
reviews the trial court's application of the law de novo.
See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex.
1992) (orig. proceeding).
has no adequate remedy by appeal because the rules do not
provide for a right to appeal an order staying ...