In Re: Stacey D. Son, et al Appeal from 3rd District Court of Henderson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-22-00233-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN RE: § STACEY D. SON, ET AL, § RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Stacey D. Son and Valerie Son filed this original proceeding to challenge Respondent’s refusal to expunge a lis pendens. 1 On October 21, 2022, this Court conditionally granted the petition and directed Respondent to vacate his order of July 21, 2022 denying Relators’ motion to expunge the lis pendens, and in its stead, to issue an order granting the motion to expunge the notice of lis pendens. By an order signed on October 31, Respondent complied with this Court’s opinion and order, rendering this proceeding moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. Opinion delivered November 9, 2022. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. Respondent is the Honorable Mark. A. Calhoon, Judge of the 3rd District Court in Henderson County, Texas. The Real Party in Interest is Bernard Uechtritz. 1 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT NOVEMBER 9, 2022 NO. 12-22-00233-CV STACEY D. SON, ET AL, Relators V. HON. MARK A. CALHOON, Respondent ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Stacey D. Son, et al; who are the Relators in appellate cause number 12-22-00233-CV and the defendants in trial court cause number CV-21-0433-3, pending on the docket of the 3rd Judicial District Court of Henderson County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on August 29, 2022, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as moot. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

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.