In re Billie O. Stone Appeal from 22nd District Court of Comal County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-22-00660-CV In re Billie O. Stone ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Billie O. Stone concurrently filed this and another identically styled petition for writ of mandamus, both of which complain of an allegedly fraudulent lien.1 Each indicates that it is related to an appeal already pending before this Court.2 We conclude that the record before us is insufficient to allow us to consider Stone’s petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1), (2). The rules of appellate procedure require a relator to file a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in the underlying proceeding and a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding (including any exhibits offered in evidence) or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter. Id. The filings in this case do not comply 1 The companion petition is In re Billie O. Stone, No. 03-22-00664-CV (Tex. App.— Austin filed Oct. 18, 2022). Both petitions were filed as In re To a Fraudulent Purported Lien or Claim Against, Billie O. Stone and Patricia A. Stone but have been modified to conform to Rule 52.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure regarding the captioning of an original proceeding. 2 Billie O. Stone d/b/a Stobil Enterprise v. Randolph-Brooks Federal Credit Union, No. 03-21-00422-CV (Tex. App.—Austin filed Aug. 26, 2021). with the requirements of rule 52.7 and, most notably, do not include a copy of a district court order from which relief is sought. Having reviewed the petition and the materials provided, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). __________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker, Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly Filed: November 8, 2022 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.