Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-26-00396-CV __________________ IN RE FRED PARSONS __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding Probate Court No. 1 of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25-49291-G __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Fred Parsons filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. Parsons asks this Court to compel the trial court to (1) immediately vacate the September 21, 2026 Docket Control Order and strike the December 21, 2026 trial setting, (2) vacate the Order Modifying Temporary Guardianship, signed on December 18, 2025, and (3) hold a hearing and rule on Relator’s Pleas to the Jurisdiction and Motion to Disqualify Counsel before making any further scheduling order. We deny mandamus relief. Parsons is a contestant in a guardianship proceeding concerning his mother. In the trial court, Parsons contends that Claire Lindsay, the guardian ad litem 1 appointed for the proposed ward in the probate case concerning the estate of Parsons’s father, lacks standing to file the petition for guardianship and failed to comply with the statutory notice requirement. See Tex. Est. Code Ann. § 1051.104. Parsons contends the trial court abused its discretion by “ignoring” his motion to disqualify the counsel of record for the proposed ward. Parsons argues the temporary guardian appointed by the trial court failed to timely qualify by posting the statutory surety bond and the trial court abused its discretion by “refusing” to remove him. On September 21, 2026, the trial court set Parsons’s pending motions for a hearing on October 27, 2026. The trial court’s September 21, 2026 docket control order sets the trial for December 21, 2026. In his mandamus petition, Parsons contends, “By issuing a Docket Control Order setting a December 21, 2026 jury trial, Respondent is actively forcing the parties to litigate the merits of a void lawsuit.” He cites no case authority to support his statement that issuing a docket control order forces the parties to litigate the merits of the lawsuit. 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 2 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 In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. Generally, “a trial court abuses its discretion when it proceeds to the merits despite an unresolved challenge to its authority to do so.” Paxton v. City of Austin, No. 24-1078, 2026 WL 1445577, at *5 (Tex. May 22, 2026) (not yet reported). A court “must determine at its earliest opportunity whether it has the constitutional or statutory authority to decide the case before allowing the litigation to proceed.” Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). That said, a docket control order does not determine the merits. On this record Realtor failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing a docket control order, by setting the hearing on Relator’s motions for October 27, 2026, or by setting a trial date. We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on October 7, 2026 Opinion Delivered October 8, 2026 Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ. 3