In re Juan Carlos Castillo Appeal from 309th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed March 31, 2016. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00057-CV IN RE JUAN CARLOS CASTILLO, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 309th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012-29624 MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 26, 2016, relator Juan Carlos Castillo filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Sheri Y. Dean, presiding judge of the 309th District Court of Harris County, to rule on his motion for reduction of his monthly spousal support payment. Alternatively, relator asserts that the trial court effectively denied his motion and requests that we compel the trial court to grant his motion. On March 4, 2016, the trial court signed the final decree of divorce in the underlying case. The interlocutory order on spousal support has merged into the final decree of divorce, which is appealable. See H.B. Zachry Co. v. Thibodeaux, 364 S.W. 192, 193 (Tex. 1963) (per curiam) (holding that prior interlocutory orders merge into subsequent order disposing of remaining parties and issues, creating a final and appealable judgment); Wilkins v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 58 S.W.3d 176, 182–83 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (“An order, even if interlocutory, is nevertheless final and appealable if it has merged into a subsequent order which, by its nature, is a final appealable order.”). Therefore, relator has an adequate remedy by appeal. Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Christopher, McCally, and Busby. 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.