On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
The instant case was a divorce action between the respondent and the relator. The respondent sought to enforce an in-court agreement as a contract. The case proceeded to trial to determine whether the relator lacked mental capacity to enter the agreement. After the jury returned a verdict in the relator's favor, the respondent moved for a new trial, raising certain allegations. The trial court granted the respondent's motion without stating the reasons for doing so. The relator sought mandamus relief from the appellate court, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion for new trial without clearly articulating reasons. While the mandamus petition was pending, the trial court signed an amended order granting a new trial based on all grounds in the motion. Shortly thereafter, the trial judge resigned, and a successor judge was appointed. The appellate court denied the relator's petition and also the relator's motion for rehearing, which sought to abate the case until the successor judge had an opportunity to reconsider the order. The relator then petitioned the instant court for a writ of mandamus. The Texas Supreme Court recently held that a successor trial court’s order reaffirming the original trial court’s grant of a motion for new trial was “effectively an order refusing to enter judgment on the jury verdict and affected the rights of the parties no less than did the orders of the original judge,” and it was concluded that the relator in that case was “entitled to know those reasons just as much as it would be entitled to know the reasons for the orders entered by the former trial judge.” Accordingly, the mandamus relief was conditionally granted, directing the successor trial court to specify the reasons it refused to enter judgment on the jury verdict and ordered a new trial. Because the successor trial court judge in the instant case did not state sufficient reasons for his ruling, contrary to the holding in In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, 290 S.W.3d 204, (Tex. 2009), the relief was conditionally granted.