Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo
Appeal from the 237th District Court Lubbock County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2016-519, 987; Honorable Les Hatch, Presiding
QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Patrick A. Pirtle, Justice.
September 27, 2016, the trial court signed its Final
Decree of Divorce, severing the bonds of matrimony
between Appellant, Landry Robert Lloyd, and Appellee, Kacy
Jeanne Hensley. By a single issue, Landry contends the trial
court erred by denying his Motion to Set Aside Default
Judgment. We affirm.
and Kacy were married on October 24, 2015. Less than five
months later, they separated and ceased to live together as
husband and wife. No children were born during the marriage
and the parties accumulated no significant community
property. Landry filed his petition for divorce on March 22,
2016,  and Lacy filed her counter-petition on May
10. The contested issues in the divorce centered on the
characterization and division of three pieces of property:
(1) Kacy's wedding ring, (2) a pair of women's
earrings, and (3) a German Shepherd dog named
"Black." On June 8, Landry requested a jury trial.
The trial court scheduled trial to begin on Monday, August 1,
and at a pretrial hearing held on Friday, July 29, Charles
Blevins, Landry's counsel, made an oral motion in
limine regarding a prior auto accident involving his
client where two people were killed. Discussion surrounding
that motion led to a discussion concerning fault in the
breakup of the marriage. When Landry's counsel realized
that fault had not been pled, he moved to amend his
pleadings. The trial court denied that motion and the
pretrial hearing recessed. Later that same day, Mr. Blevins
notified the trial court that Landry was waiving his request
for a jury trial.
Monday, August 1, the day trial was set to begin, Mr. Blevins
appeared in court and filed a motion seeking to disqualify
Kacy's attorney. When the trial court denied that motion,
Mr. Blevins attempted to dismiss Landry's petition. When
the court informed him that it would stll proceed on
Kacy's counter-petition, Mr. Blevins withdrew his oral
motion to dismiss and advised the trial court that he would
be filing a petition for writ of mandamus regarding the
court's denial of his motion to disqualify. At that
point, the record goes silent as to the discussions between
the trial court and counsel. In that regard, the record
reflects the following colloquy:
THE COURT: Let's go off the record.
(Open Court, no jury.)
THE COURT: The Court calls Cause Number 2016-519, 987. This
the Matter of the Marriage of Landry and Kacy Lloyd.
What says the Petitioner?
Let the record reflect that the Petitioner, attorney for
Petitioner has indicated to the Court that he is leaving the
courtroom to travel to his office to file Motion for Leave
for Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The Court has indicated to
Counsel for Petitioner that it is calling the case and
proceeding with trial in the meantime. He has indicated that
he has no objection, as long as our first witness is, in