Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler
IN RE: BONNIE B. DOYLE, RELATOR
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
Doyle seeks mandamus relief from the trial court's
temporary orders awarding Bennie Doyle exclusive occupancy of
their residence. We deny the writ.
and Bennie began living together as husband and wife in
November 2010. They were formally married in December 2012.
Bonnie filed a petition for divorce in March 2017. In May,
Respondent conducted a hearing on temporary orders after
which Respondent awarded Bonnie temporary exclusive use of
the residence located on Joe Pool Lane. The parties purchased
the residence in June 2012. Shortly after the hearing, the
parties attempted to reconcile, and Bennie moved back into
the home until March 2019. In April, Bennie filed a first
amended counterpetition for divorce, in which he requested
that the residence be sold and that Respondent make
appropriate orders regarding the use and enjoyment of the
residence. Bennie filed a motion to modify temporary orders
on August 23, 2019.
September 2019, at a hearing on Bennie's motion to modify
temporary orders, Respondent heard evidence that Palm Harbor
Homes made an offer to purchase the residence. There was also
evidence that the home was deteriorating and experiencing
flooding issues and that Bonnie did not cooperate with the
maintenance and repair attempts. As a result, Respondent
found that the value of the residence would continue to
depreciate if Bonnie continued to reside there. Respondent
appointed a receiver, ordered Bonnie to vacate the premises
by October 1, 2019, and awarded Bennie exclusive occupancy of
the residence starting October 1, 2019, during the pendency
of the case or until the property is sold. This original
is an extraordinary remedy. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co.,
L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig.
proceeding). Mandamus relief is available only if the relator
establishes that the trial court abused its discretion and no
adequate appellate remedy exists. In re State, 355
S.W.3d 611, 613 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); Walker v.
Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding). Review by mandamus of temporary orders under
subchapter F of the family code is proper because those
orders, other than an order appointing a receiver, are not
subject to interlocutory appeal under the family code.
See Tex. Fam. Code. Ann. § 6.507 (West 2006);
In re Vitol, Inc., No. 14-10-00049-CV, 2010 WL
308792, *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, orig.
proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.).
contends Respondent abused his discretion when he issued the
temporary orders and awarded Bennie exclusive occupancy of
the residence during the pendency of the divorce.
Specifically, she urges that Section 6.501 of the Texas
Family Code does not authorize a trial court to evict a
spouse from her residence.
court clearly abuses its discretion when 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
correctly analyze or apply the law. In re Olshan Found.
Repair Co., L.C., 328 S.W.3d 883, 888 (Tex. 2010) (orig.
proceeding); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839. This
standard has different applications in different
circumstances. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839. When
reviewing the trial court's resolution of factual issues
or matters committed to its discretion, we may not substitute
our judgment for that of the trial court. Id. Thus,
we cannot set aside the trial court's finding unless it
is clear from the record that the trial court could have
reached only one decision. In re Nitla S.A. de C.V.,
92 S.W.3d 419, 422 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding). Our review
of the trial court's determination of the legal
principles controlling its ruling is much less deferential.
Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 849. This is because a trial
court has no discretion in determining what the law is or
applying the law to the facts. Id.
Section 6.501 of the family code, after a petition for
divorce has been filed, the court may grant a temporary
restraining order (TRO) without notice to the
adverse party for the preservation of property and for the
protection of the parties. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §
6.501(a) (West Supp. 2019). However, the TRO may not include
a provision excluding a spouse from a ...