In re Dorothy Marshall Living Trust

In re Dorothy Marshall Living Trust, 05-26-01431-CV, November 04, 2026.

On appeal from 192nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Synopsis

The Dallas Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief because the petition did not identify a reviewable act by the named respondent, clearly state the requested relief, or include an authenticated record establishing entitlement to relief. The court alternatively held that the relator neither made the required predicate request in the trial court nor timely objected to the assigned judge under Texas Government Code § 74.053(c), thereby waiving its complaint that the assignment fell outside the judge’s listed specialty.

Relevance to Family Law

Assigned and visiting judges regularly preside over divorce, conservatorship, possession, child-support, enforcement, modification, and marital-property proceedings. If a family-law litigant questions whether an assigned judge is authorized to hear domestic-relations matters, the objection must be investigated and asserted immediately—generally no later than the seventh day after actual notice of the assignment or before the first hearing begins, whichever occurs first. A passing reference in a recusal motion is not a substitute for a specific objection, a request for relief, and an adverse ruling that can support mandamus review. The opinion is equally important when emergency mandamus relief is sought from temporary orders, discovery rulings, transfer decisions, enforcement orders, or judicial-assignment disputes. The mandamus petition must connect a specific act or refusal to act to the named respondent, clearly identify the relief requested, and present a properly authenticated record demonstrating both abuse of discretion and the absence of an adequate appellate remedy.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Dorothy Marshall Living Trust sought mandamus relief against the Honorable Robert Burns, a former justice of the Fifth Court of Appeals who had been assigned to preside over a civil case pending in the 192nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County. The regional presiding judge, the Honorable Ray Wheless, made the assignment under Chapter 74 of the Texas Government Code. The Trust argued that Judge Burns lacked authority to preside because the administrative-region list identified his specialty as criminal cases, not civil or tax matters. Under Texas Government Code § 74.055(b), the list of retired and former judges available for assignment must be divided into criminal, civil, and domestic-relations specialties, and a judge may be assigned only within the judge’s area of specialty. The mandamus petition, however, focused on Judge Wheless’s assignment decision even though Judge Wheless was not the named respondent. The petition did not identify a particular ruling or refusal to act by Judge Burns. Its prayer asked the court to “conditionally grant this request” and to issue the writ if Judge Burns did not notify Judge Wheless of an asserted qualification defect, but it did not clearly define the request or the precise relief the court should order. The mandamus record was also deficient. It included a certified reporter’s record from a hearing conducted before a different judge several months before Judge Burns’s assignment. The remaining documents were neither certified nor supported by an affidavit, and the record contained no ruling by Judge Burns that was subject to mandamus review. The Trust asserted that it had raised the assignment issue in the trial court through a footnote in an April 1, 2026 motion to recuse. That footnote described the assignment as “curious” because the public list identified Judge Burns as qualified in criminal cases rather than civil or tax matters. But the motion did not develop a legal argument under the governing assignment statutes, object to the assignment, challenge Judge Burns’s authority to preside, or request relief on that basis. Judge Wheless had assigned Judge Burns in July 2025. Although the record did not establish when the Trust first received actual notice, the Trust indisputably knew of the assignment by April 1, 2026. The record did not show that the Trust filed a statutory objection within the deadline imposed by § 74.053(c), or that it ever presented a developed objection to the assignment.

Issues Decided

• Whether the mandamus petition complied with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(e)(3) when it challenged the conduct of someone other than the named respondent and identified no reviewable act by the respondent.
• Whether the petition’s prayer complied with Rule 52.3(j) by clearly stating the nature of the requested relief.
• Whether the Trust supplied a properly authenticated and substantively sufficient mandamus record under Rules 52.3(l)(1)(B) and 52.7(a).
• Whether a footnote in a recusal motion satisfied the predicate-request requirement for mandamus relief.
• Whether the Trust waived its objection that Judge Burns’s assignment did not comply with the specialty requirements of Texas Government Code § 74.055(b).
• Whether an assignment outside a judge’s listed specialty constituted a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect.

Rules Applied

• Mandamus standard. A relator must establish that the respondent clearly abused the respondent’s discretion and that the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
• Identification of the challenged act. Rule 52.3(e)(3) requires the statement of the case to provide a concise description of the respondent’s actions from which relief is sought.
• Clear prayer for relief. Rule 52.3(j) requires a short conclusion that clearly states the nature of the relief sought.
• Authenticated mandamus record. Rules 52.3(l)(1)(B) and 52.7(a) require certified or sworn copies of material documents and a sufficient record supporting the petition. The relator bears the burden of furnishing a record that demonstrates entitlement to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
• Predicate request and refusal. Mandamus relief ordinarily requires a request that the respondent take a particular action and the respondent’s erroneous refusal to do so. In re Coppola, 535 S.W.3d 506, 510 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
• Limited futility exception. A predicate request may be excused in rare circumstances when the record confirms that a request would have been futile and the refusal would have been little more than a formality. In re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
• Eligible judges and specialty lists. Texas Government Code §§ 74.054 and 74.055 govern the eligibility and listing of retired and former judges available for assignment. Section 74.055(b) requires the list to identify criminal, civil, or domestic-relations specialties and provides that a judge may be assigned only within the judge’s specialty.
• Deadline to object to an assigned judge. Under Texas Government Code § 74.053(c), an objection must be filed no later than the seventh day after the party receives actual notice of the assignment or before the first hearing begins, whichever occurs earlier.
• Waiver of specialty-based complaints. A complaint that an assignment does not comply with § 74.055(b) is waived if it is not timely asserted under § 74.053(c). In re S.L., No. 05-21-00874-CV, 2022 WL 896874, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 28, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

Application

The court first examined whether the petition identified conduct by the named respondent that could be corrected by mandamus. It did not. The Trust named Judge Burns as respondent but described the alleged error as Judge Wheless’s decision to make the assignment. The petition did not identify a ruling, order, or refusal by Judge Burns that the court could review. The prayer compounded that problem because it referred only to an undefined “request” and proposed issuance of a writ if Judge Burns did not notify Judge Wheless of the alleged defect. That formulation did not tell the court precisely what relief it was being asked to grant. The supporting record independently prevented relief. The only certified proceeding occurred before another judge and predated Judge Burns’s assignment. The other documents were not certified or sworn, and none established a reviewable ruling by Judge Burns. Because the relator carries the burden to provide a record affirmatively demonstrating entitlement to mandamus relief, the court could not supply the missing authentication, ruling, or procedural history. Even assuming the documents had been properly authenticated, the Trust had not satisfied the predicate-request requirement. Its recusal motion challenged Judge Burns’s impartiality, while a footnote merely observed that the public list described his specialty as criminal rather than civil or tax. The footnote did not cite the controlling assignment provisions, present a developed challenge to Judge Burns’s authority, object to the assignment, or ask Judge Burns to take a specific action. Thus, it did not give the respondent an opportunity to rule on the complaint later presented in the original proceeding. The Trust also did not invoke or establish the narrow futility exception. Finally, the court treated the specialty issue as a waivable assignment objection rather than a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect. The record showed that Judge Burns was on the regional presiding judge’s list and was otherwise eligible for assignment. The complaint concerned the type of case to which he was assigned, not his total ineligibility for judicial assignment or the absence of an assignment order. The Trust knew of the assignment at least by April 1, 2026, but the record did not show a timely objection under § 74.053(c). Because a specialty-based challenge must be raised within that statute’s accelerated deadline, the complaint was waived.

Holding

The court held that the petition failed to comply with Rules 52.3(e)(3) and 52.3(j). It neither identified an act by Judge Burns that was subject to mandamus review nor clearly stated the relief sought from him. The court also held that the mandamus record did not comply with Rules 52.3(l)(1)(B) and 52.7(a). The material documents were not properly authenticated, and the record contained no reviewable ruling by the named respondent. As an alternative basis for denial, the court held that the Trust failed to satisfy the predicate-request requirement. A brief reference in a footnote did not amount to a specific objection, request for action, and adverse ruling concerning Judge Burns’s authority to preside. The court further held that the Trust waived its § 74.055(b) specialty-based objection by failing to assert it within the deadline imposed by § 74.053(c). The asserted mismatch between the assigned case and the specialty appearing on the administrative list did not create the type of nonwaivable jurisdictional defect that could be raised at any time.

Practical Application

For family-law counsel, the first practical lesson is to treat notice of an assigned judge as a litigation deadline—not merely as scheduling information. Upon receiving an assignment order in a divorce, SAPCR, modification, enforcement, or property case, counsel should immediately determine the date of actual notice, the first scheduled hearing date, the source of the assignment, and whether any statutory objection exists. The operative deadline may expire before the seven-day period if the first hearing begins earlier. Counsel should also distinguish among different procedural vehicles. A statutory objection to an assigned judge, a motion to recuse, a constitutional disqualification contention, and a challenge to the judge’s listed specialty are not interchangeable. Each has its own grounds, procedure, deadlines, and consequences. Including a specialty concern in a footnote to a recusal motion does not necessarily preserve an assignment objection. If mandamus may be necessary, build the predicate in the trial court. Present the controlling legal authorities, identify the precise requested action, obtain a ruling or refusal to rule, and ensure that the request and ruling are recorded. The appellate petition should then challenge that particular act or refusal by the named respondent. This discipline is especially important in accelerated family-law settings. A visiting judge may be assigned shortly before a temporary-orders hearing, protective-order proceeding, habeas hearing, child-custody trial, or enforcement hearing. Counsel should not postpone the assignment analysis until after an adverse substantive ruling. By that point, § 74.053(c)’s earlier-of-two-deadlines framework may already have foreclosed the objection. For other family-law mandamus proceedings, the opinion reinforces several drafting requirements:

1. Name the judicial officer whose act or refusal the petition seeks to correct.
2. State exactly what that respondent did or declined to do.
3. Explain why the act constitutes a clear abuse of discretion.
4. Explain why appeal is inadequate.
5. Ask for precise relief that the appellate court can direct the respondent to provide.
6. Authenticate every material record document.
7. Include the request, the response, the challenged order, and the evidence necessary to evaluate the issue.

Checklists

Upon Receiving Notice of a Visiting or Assigned Judge

• Record the exact date and method by which each client or counsel received actual notice.
• Obtain and preserve the assignment order.
• Identify the regional presiding judge and the statutory authority cited for the assignment.
• Determine the date and time of the first hearing before the assigned judge.
• Calendar both potential deadlines under Texas Government Code § 74.053(c).
• Apply the earlier deadline: seven days after actual notice or before the first hearing begins.
• Confirm whether the judge appears on the applicable administrative-region list.
• Determine whether the list identifies the judge for civil, criminal, domestic-relations, or multiple specialties.
• Evaluate whether the concern involves eligibility, specialty, recusal, constitutional disqualification, or another distinct issue.
• File any authorized objection before the applicable deadline expires.

Preserving a Specialty-Based Assignment Challenge

• Cite Texas Government Code §§ 74.053, 74.054, 74.055, and 74.056 as applicable.
• Identify the assignment order and the assigned judge.
• Attach or offer an authenticated copy of the administrative-region specialty list.
• Explain the category of the pending case and the specialty shown on the list.
• State expressly that the party objects to the assignment.
• Request a specific form of relief.
• Obtain an express ruling before proceeding, if practicable.
• Ensure that the objection and ruling appear in the clerk’s record or reporter’s record.
• Do not rely solely on a footnote, informal comment, or unrelated motion.
• Do not assume the issue can be raised after the assigned judge conducts the first hearing.

Establishing the Predicate for Mandamus

• Present the exact legal argument to the trial court.
• Direct the request to the judge who will be named as respondent.
• Ask the judge to take a specific, legally authorized action.
• Cite the authorities supporting that request.
• Submit the documents and evidence necessary for a ruling.
• Request an oral or written ruling.
• If the court does not rule, make a clear request for a ruling on the record.
• Document any refusal to act.
• Evaluate whether appeal provides an adequate remedy.
• Do not rely on the futility exception unless the record affirmatively establishes its exceptional circumstances.

Drafting the Mandamus Petition

• Identify a specific act, order, or refusal by the named respondent.
• Describe that conduct concisely in the statement of the case.
• Confirm that the challenged conduct matches the issue presented and argument.
• Explain the clear abuse of discretion.
• Analyze why no adequate appellate remedy exists.
• State the requested relief in a short, unambiguous prayer.
• Specify what the respondent must do if relief is conditionally granted.
• Avoid asking the court to correct the conduct of a person who is not properly before it.
• Confirm compliance with every component of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3.
• Verify all factual statements against the mandamus record.

Preparing the Mandamus Record

• Include a certified or sworn copy of every material order.
• Include the written motion, objection, or request presented below.
• Include all responses and relevant briefing.
• Include a properly authenticated copy of the assignment order.
• Include authenticated administrative records on which the challenge depends.
• Include the reporter’s record of the relevant hearing.
• Include the respondent’s ruling or refusal to rule.
• Confirm that each document relates to the named respondent and challenged action.
• Exclude reliance on proceedings that predate or do not concern the challenged action unless they are materially relevant.
• Verify compliance with Rules 52.3(l)(1)(B) and 52.7(a).

Family-Law Hearing Readiness

• Check for assignment orders before temporary-orders, enforcement, modification, and final-trial settings.
• Recheck the assigned judge’s status if the assignment changes shortly before a hearing.
• Address any assignment objection before presenting evidence or obtaining substantive rulings.
• Preserve the distinction between recusal, disqualification, and statutory assignment objections.
• Advise the client promptly when an accelerated objection deadline begins to run.
• Maintain authenticated copies of all relevant filings and orders in anticipation of possible emergency appellate review.

Citation

In re Dorothy Marshall Living Trust, No. 05-26-01431-CV, slip op. (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 4, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion.

Family Law Crossover

The crossover rule is procedural and has two linked components. First, a complaint that an assigned judge has been designated to a case outside the specialty shown on the administrative-region list is subject to the objection deadline in Texas Government Code § 74.053(c). In a family-law proceeding, this may arise when a former or retired judge is assigned to a divorce, SAPCR, modification, enforcement, or other domestic-relations case, but the applicable list does not identify domestic relations as an area of specialty. The objection must be filed by the earlier of the seventh day after actual notice or the commencement of the first hearing. Second, if mandamus review becomes necessary, the relator ordinarily must first ask the assigned judge to take specific action and obtain a ruling or refusal. The petition must identify that act or refusal by the named respondent, state the requested appellate relief precisely, and include authenticated copies of the request, relevant evidence, assignment documents, and ruling. Merely mentioning the assignment issue in another motion does not necessarily preserve it or establish the predicate for mandamus relief. ~~d87c449e-a2be-4682-a4b8-0ca08aa7b10c~~