Full Opinion

fIn The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-26-00369-CV __________________ IN RE BAILEY G. WINGATE __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 279th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 26DCFM0843 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Bailey G. Wingate seeks mandamus and temporary relief from a temporary order in a suit for divorce from Real Party in Interest Lauren Nicole Wingate. Relator complains that the trial court ordered temporary spousal support that is not authorized by the parties’ premarital agreement and ordered Relator to deliver the 2022 Lincoln Navigator referred to in the premarital agreement notwithstanding the parties’ prior written Rule 11 Agreement allowing Relator to deliver a 2015 Lincoln Navigator as a suitable replacement vehicle. 1 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). “An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable, made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence.” In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). 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. Generally, while a suit for dissolution of a marriage is pending, the court may require payments to be made for the support of a spouse. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.502(a)(2). The parties to a premarital agreement may contract with respect to “the rights and obligations of each of the parties in any of the property of either or both of them and whenever and wherever acquired or located []” and “modification or elimination of spousal support.” Id. § 4.003(a)(1)(4). The party seeking to avoid enforcement of a premarital agreement bears the burden of proof that the agreement is invalid or unconscionable. See id. § 4.006. 2 The mandamus record shows that the trial court deferred ruling on the enforcement of the premarital agreement to a hearing scheduled for October 26, 2026, after the parties have had an opportunity to complete discovery on the matter. On this record, Relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and the motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a), 52.10. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on September 10, 2026 Opinion Delivered September 11, 2026 Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ. 3