Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Supreme Court of Texas

Mr. Amsberry did not object to the entry of the decree, nor was a severance requested
orally or in written form. (Appendix K).
On October 18, 2011, Mr. Amsberry filed “Motion by Intervenor, J.G. Russell
Amsberry, to Sever his claim of Attorney’s Fees.” (Appendix I). On October 25, 2011, 28
days after the Final Decree of Divorce was signed, Judge David A. Berchelmann, Jr.
granted Mr. Amsberry a severance over Alejandra’s objection. (Appendix J and K).
Alejandra now seeks relief from said order and requests that a Writ of Mandamus issue to
correct the trial court’s abuse of discretion.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
Mandamus will not issue where there is “a clear and adequate remedy at law, such
as a normal appeal.” State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex.1984). Mandamus is an
extraordinary remedy, available only in limited circumstances and will issue “only in
situations involving manifest and urgent necessity and not for grievances that may be
addressed by other remedies.” Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 684
(Tex.1989). In order to obtain mandamus relief, Alejandra must establish the lack of an
adequate appellate remedy. Holloway, 767 S.W.2d at 684; Packer, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
The issue before this Court is such that Relator does not have an adequate remedy
by appeal. The determination of whether a remedy by ordinary appeal is adequate so as
to preclude mandamus review depends on the circumstances presented and is better
guided by general principles than by simple rules. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d
124, 137 (Tex. 2004). An appellate remedy is “adequate” only when the benefits to
mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments. Id. Unless the severance order is
5