In re Aurora M. Alonso--Appeal from Probate Court No 4 of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued September 29, 2011
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-11-00759-CV
———————————
IN RE AURORA M. ALONSO, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Aurora M. Alonso filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging
the trial court’s denial of her motion to set a hearing on her application for
temporary guardianship of her mother, Aurora Ramos a/k/a Aurora Rodriguez. *
*
The underlying case is In the Interest of Aurora Ramos a.k.a. Aurora Rodriguez,
An Adult; Cause Number 405,531, in Probate Court No. 4 of Harris County,
Texas, Honorable Christine Butts, presiding.
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Relator has the burden of
providing a sufficient record to establish her right to mandamus relief. See Walker
v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). “Although mandamus is not an
equitable remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles.” In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (quoting Rivercenter
Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993)).
Relator’s application in the trial court referenced only a specific hearing in
connection with its allegation of imminent danger to the proposed ward. See TEX.
PROB. CODE ANN. § 875(c)(2) (West Supp. 2010). The petition filed in this Court
asserts that the imminent danger extended beyond the specific date identified in the
application filed in the trial court, but the record does not demonstrate that Relator
amended or refiled her application to include this allegation, nor does it
demonstrate that Relator made this argument to the trial court in any other way.
Relator’s failure to produce a record showing that she presented these arguments to
the trial court thus precludes us from finding that the trial court committed a clear
abuse of its discretion. See, e.g., In re Jindal Saw Ltd., 264 S.W.3d 755, 767 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale.
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.
