In Re: Steven B. Aubrey Appeal from Probate Court No. 3 of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DENY; and Opinion Filed September 17, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-01172-CV IN RE STEVEN B. AUBREY, Relator Original Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR-14-01486-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O'Neill, Lang, and Brown Opinion by Justice O'Neill Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial court to vacate its July 21, 2014 Order Vacating Order to Produce Accounting Signed July 7, 2014 and to order the trial court to sign an order requiring an accounting of the two trusts at issue in the case. The facts and issues are well-known to the parties so we do not recount them here. Relator s petition does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App. Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (denying petition for writ of mandamus because petition and record not authenticated as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure). In addition, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is available only in limited circumstances. CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 596 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding) (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)). Mandamus is appropriate only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate remedy by law. Id. Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839. Relator has not met these requirements. For these reasons, relator has failed to establish his right to relief. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8. /Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE 141172F.P05 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.