In Re Rejeana Leatherwood v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00145-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE REJEANA LEATHERWOOD

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Cron, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca1

By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Rejeana Leatherwood asserts that

the probate court has abused its discretion by authorizing a nonjudicial foreclosure of

estate property “while a confined Chapter 301 threshold Motion to Vacate Void Orders

remains unresolved by written ruling.” Relator has filed an emergency motion for

temporary relief seeking to stay “enforcement and implementation of the probate court’s

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
foreclosure authorization order” and “all actions taken pursuant to or in furtherance of that

order—including any steps to notice, schedule, conduct, or consummate a nonjudicial

foreclosure and any transfer of title or possession.”

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on

appeal. In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding).

Alternatively, when “a trial court issues an order ‘beyond its jurisdiction,’ mandamus relief

is appropriate because such an order is void ab initio.” In re Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d

536, 539 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35

S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding)). In such circumstances, the relator need

not show it lacks an adequate appellate remedy. See In re Vaishangi, Inc., 442 S.W.3d

256, 261 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d

at 605.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to

obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and her

emergency motion for temporary relief.

YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
9th day of February, 2026.

2