In re Jeffery C. Arnier, Sr. Appeal from Probate Court No. 2 of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-20-00358-CV ___________________________ IN RE JEFFERY C. ARNIER SR., Relator1 Original Proceeding Probate Court No. 2 of Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019-GD00160-2 Before Womack, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Wallach, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion We have changed the style of the case to reflect the name of the relator in the caption. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Jeffery C. Arnier Sr., court investigator for Probate Court No. 2 of Tarrant County, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking relief from the probate court’s order denying his motion for an in-person trial on his application for guardianship of the person of proposed ward Judy Love. We deny the petition. Relator’s petition does not provide facts or evidence specific to Love’s case and thus does not show a need for relief. See In re Garza, No. 07-14-00347-CV, 2014 WL 5255162, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 14, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (noting that relator has the burden to establish in the petition the facts entitling relator to relief). Further, as the probate court’s order denying relator’s motion states that Love’s needs are being met and that there is no immediate need for a trial, any threat to Love’s due process rights from a remote guardianship trial is, at this point, hypothetical. See In re Penney, No. 05-14-00503-CV, 2014 WL 2532307, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 4, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (stating that Texas courts have no jurisdiction to render advisory opinions addressing a hypothetical injury and that this jurisdictional requirement applies to mandamus proceedings). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). Per Curiam Delivered: November 25, 2020 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.