In Re Michael A. Shomate and Brianne K. Shomate v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-26-00189-CV
__________________

IN RE MICHAEL A. SHOMATE AND BRIANNE K. SHOMATE

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding
284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 25-08-13306
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Michael A. Shomate and Brianne K.

Shomate seek to compel the trial court: (1) to vacate or reconsider an Order on

Motions Related to Discovery and Abatement, signed March 27, 2026; (2) conduct

an immediate pre-trial evidentiary sanctions hearing; (3) require Real Party in

Interest Servis One, Inc. d/b/a BSI Financial Services “to produce and authenticate

a complete, native or source-supported, reconciled accounting tied to BSI’s internal

servicing logs, and impose sanction[s] sufficient to cure the prejudice[;]” and (4)

exclude “all undisclosed, typed-up, summary, or unreconciled accounting

1
evidence[.]” As temporary relief, Relators request a stay of the trial currently

scheduled for June 1, 2026, and “all foreclosure-related trial-court proceedings[.]”

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). “A trial

court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and

unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Walker, 827

S.W.2d at 839 (internal quotations omitted). A trial court also abuses its discretion

if it fails to correctly analyze or apply the law, because a trial court has no discretion

in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. See Prudential,

148 S.W.3d at 135; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.

We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits

of mandamus review against the detriments, considering whether extending

mandamus relief will preserve important substantive and procedural rights from

impairment or loss. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig.

proceeding).

We conclude that on this record, the Relators have not shown that they are

entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of

2
mandamus and the motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a);

52.10(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on May 20, 2026
Opinion Delivered May 21, 2026

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

3