CourtListener 10758147•In Re Gibraltar Finance & Mortgage, Inc. v. the State of Texas
In Re Gibraltar Finance & Mortgage, Inc. v. the State of Texas
CourtListener 10758147Txctapp19 déc. 2025
Texte intégral
Opinion issued December 9, 2025
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-25-00976-CV
———————————
IN RE GIBRALTAR FINANCE & MORTGAGE, INC., Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Gibraltar Finance & Mortgage, Inc., filed a petition for writ of
mandamus challenging the trial court’s July 26, 2025 “Order Granting Bill of
Review.”1 Relator alleged that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the
bill of review filed by real party in interest, DB Webster, Ltd., “before . . . relator
1
The underlying case is Gibraltar Finance & Mortgage, Inc. v. DB Webster, Ltd.,
Cause No. 2023-00648, in the 333rd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the
Honorable Tracy Dwight Good presiding.
was able to fully present its case.”2 Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus
requested that the Court grant its petition and issue a writ of mandamus ordering the
trial court to “vacate [its] order and retry the bill of review case fully.”
We conclude that relator has failed to establish it is entitled to mandamus
relief, and, therefore, the Court denies relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See
Patrick O’Connor & Assocs., L.P. v. Wang Inv. Networks, Inc., No.
01-12-00615-CV, 2013 WL 1451358, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr.
9, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“[T]he general rule stated by both this Court
and our sister court in Houston is that an interlocutory order granting a bill of review
may not be reviewed by mandamus, but by appeal of the eventual final judgment in
the case.”); In re Moreno, 4 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
1999, orig. proceeding) (denying petition for writ of mandamus from trial court order
granting bill of review “[b]ecause relators ha[d] an adequate remedy by appeal of
the eventual final judgment in the underlying case”); see also In re Mayra Isabel
Bustamante, No. 01-25-00898-CV, 2025 WL 3165473, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston
2
Relator also filed a notice of appeal in this Court from the trial court’s July 16, 2025
“Order Granting Bill of Review.” However, after real party in interest moved to
dismiss that appeal because the trial court’s order was not a final judgment or
otherwise appealable order, on October 21, 2025, relator filed a motion to dismiss
that appeal. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal on October 30,
2025. See Gibraltar Fin. & Mortg., Inc. v. DB Webster, Ltd., No. 01-25-00642-CV,
2025 WL 3028893, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 30, 2025, no pet.)
(mem. op.).
2
[1st Dist.] Nov. 13, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). We dismiss any pending
motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Caughey, and Dokupil.
3
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.