In Re Scott Mitchell Obeginski v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00480-CV
__________________

IN RE SCOTT MITCHELL OBEGINSKI

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding
284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 24-11-18234
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus and a motion for temporary relief, Scott

Mitchell Obeginski seeks to have this Court stay execution on a writ of possession

that issued in accordance with the trial court’s judgment dated October 17, 2025, and

compel the trial court to withdraw a Notice Regarding Request for Ex parte TRO

dated December 1, 2025. We deny the petition and the motion for temporary relief.

On December 1, 2025, Obeginski filed an Emergency Motion to Vacate Void

Judgment for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and for Immediate Stay of

Enforcement, and an Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order. In

1
the motions, Obeginski contends that on the date of the original mortgage transaction

an unidentified statute prohibited mortgage brokers such as the original lender from

funding mortgage loans, and consequently the purchaser at the foreclosure sale

lacked standing to sue. Thus, he argues that the final judgment in the trespass to try

title and the writ of possession are void. He asked the trial court to immediately issue

an ex parte temporary restraining order under Rule 680 of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure, set a nominal bond under Rule 684 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,

set the matter for a temporary injunction hearing within fourteen days, and after a

hearing on the Motion to Vacate, vacate the October 17 judgment as void for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

The trial court neither granted nor denied Obeginski’s motions, instead issuing

a notice that neither motion was appropriate given the presence of several opposing

counsel in the case and the transfer of jurisdiction to the appellate court. In his

mandamus petition, Obeginski argues Rule 680 authorizes a trial court to issue a

temporary injunction without notice at any time upon a showing of imminent and

irreparable harm. Citing In re Sheshtawy, he argues, “the Texas Supreme Texas has

confirmed a trial court retains authority over collateral matters, including the power

to ‘grant a temporary restraining order to prevent execution on the judgment.’”

Obeginski misquotes In re Sheshtawy,154 S.W.3d 114, 124 (Tex. 2004). The

trial court retains authority “to aid execution while an unsuperseded judgment is on

2
appeal.” Id. (emphasis added). The appropriate procedure to utilize when a judgment

debtor seeks to avoid execution of a final judgment pending the resolution of an

appeal is supersedeas. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 24. Obeginski does not assert

that he has employed any of the methods for superseding a judgment permitted by

Rule 24.1(a). See id. R. 24.1(a).

We may issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by

the trial court when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding);

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

Obeginski’s challenge to the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction can be

adequately addressed in his appeal. Meanwhile, he can prevent execution on the

judgment by filing a supersedeas bond or by employing an alternative method

authorized by Rule 24.1(a). 1 We conclude that on this record the Relator has not

shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for

1
Contemporaneously with the filing of the two motions mentioned in the trial
court’s Notice, Obeginski filed a Motion to Set Supersedeas Bond and to Stay
Enforcement of the Writ of Possession Pending Determination and Posting of Bond.
He filed his mandamus petition the following day. Obeginski has neither shown that
the trial court has refused a request to determine the amount of bond required to
supersede the judgment nor has he asked this Court to compel the trial court to set
the amount of bond required to supersede the judgment under Rule 24.

3
a writ of mandamus and the motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a),

52.10(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on December 3, 2025
Opinion Delivered December 4, 2025

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

4