What did the court decide?

The appellate court denied Brock's request for mandamus because he sought the extraordinary writ before the accounting deadline had passed and did not show the trial court refused to rule on his later objections.

Who is affected by this decision?

Brock (the relator), the executor Charles Tackett, and the county court judge are affected because the denial leaves the trial court with responsibility to address any unresolved objections to the accounting.

Does this mean the accounting is final and accepted?

No. The decision does not evaluate the merits of the accounting; it only denies immediate appellate mandamus relief. Any objections to the accounting still must be pursued in the trial court.

Can Brock seek further review?

Brock may pursue relief in the trial court by asking the judge to rule on his motion or objections and, if appropriate, may later seek mandamus again if the trial court refuses to act or otherwise abuses its discretion.

In Re Jeffery Don Brock v. the State of Texas

Docket 06-26-00029-CV

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDenied

Filed: Apr 27, 2026 · 4 days ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Denied
Docket: 06-26-00029-CV

Original mandamus proceeding asking the appellate court to compel a county court judge to rule on a motion to compel an estate accounting

Summary

The Court of Appeals (Sixth District) denied Jeffrey Don Brock's petition for a writ of mandamus asking the county court judge to rule on his motion to compel an executor's accounting. Brock had demanded an accounting by March 16, 2026, but filed for mandamus on March 10, before that deadline expired. The executor filed a verified accounting on March 13 (with clerk acceptance disputed by Brock). The court held Brock was not entitled to extraordinary relief because he sought mandamus before the accounting deadline and did not show the trial court refused to rule on his later complaints about the accounting.

Issues Decided

Whether relator was entitled to mandamus relief to force a trial court to rule on a motion to compel an executor's accounting before the statutory deadline for producing the accounting had passed
Whether relator established lack of an adequate remedy at law and a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court
Whether relator preserved and presented the trial-court record showing the court refused to rule on objections to the accounting after it was filed

Court's Reasoning

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when a relator shows a clear legal duty and no adequate remedy at law. Brock sought mandamus before the executor's accounting was due under the demand he made, so relief was premature. After the accounting was filed, Brock failed to develop the record or show he had asked the trial court to rule on his subsequent complaints, so he did not establish the trial court refused to act or abused its discretion.

Authorities Cited

Texas Estates Code § 404.001TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 404.001(b)
In re Greenwell160 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding)
In re Good Shepherd Hosp., Inc.572 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, orig. proceeding)

Parties

Petitioner: Jeffrey Don Brock
Respondent: Honorable Joe Black, Presiding Judge, County Court at Law of Harrison County
Respondent: Charles Tackett (executor)
Judge: Jeff Rambin

Key Dates

Demand email sent: 2026-01-15
Motion to compel filed: 2026-01-28
Request for submission/hearing: 2026-01-29
Request for ruling filed: 2026-02-19
Mandamus petition filed in appellate court (submitted): 2026-03-10
Executor filed/served accounting (per respondent): 2026-03-13
Accounting acceptance by clerk (alleged by relator): 2026-03-20
Date Submitted to Court of Appeals: 2026-04-24
Date Decided: 2026-04-27

What You Should Do Next

1
Ask the trial court to rule
File a renewed request for ruling or a motion specifying deficiencies in the accounting and ask the trial court to rule on those objections within a stated reasonable time.
2
Develop the record
Ensure the trial-court record documents the accounting's filing, any clerk rejections or acceptance, and all requests for rulings so an appellate court could review any future mandamus request.
3
Consider trial-court remedies
If the accounting remains deficient, seek appropriate relief in the probate court such as an order compelling a verified accounting or other discovery as allowed under the Estates Code.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court denied Brock's request for mandamus because he sought the extraordinary writ before the accounting deadline had passed and did not show the trial court refused to rule on his later objections.
Who is affected by this decision?: Brock (the relator), the executor Charles Tackett, and the county court judge are affected because the denial leaves the trial court with responsibility to address any unresolved objections to the accounting.
Does this mean the accounting is final and accepted?: No. The decision does not evaluate the merits of the accounting; it only denies immediate appellate mandamus relief. Any objections to the accounting still must be pursued in the trial court.
Can Brock seek further review?: Brock may pursue relief in the trial court by asking the judge to rule on his motion or objections and, if appropriate, may later seek mandamus again if the trial court refuses to act or otherwise abuses its discretion.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-26-00029-CV

IN RE JEFFERY DON BROCK

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
MEMORANDUM OPINION

By his petition for a writ of mandamus, Relator, Jeffrey Don Brock, asks this Court to

order the Honorable Joe Black, presiding judge of the County Court at Law of Harrison County,

Texas, to rule on his motion to compel an accounting of the Estate of Allie Marie Schuler Brock

Fugler. We deny the mandamus petition.

I. Factual Background

The record provided to us indicates that Brock petitioned for mandamus regarding a

motion to compel prior to the deadline for production set by his own request. On January 15,

2026, Brock emailed Dean Searle, counsel for Charles Tackett (the executor), requesting

“[p]ursuant to Texas Estates Code § 404.001[,] . . . a full, verified accounting of the Estate . . .

within the time required by law on or before March 16, 2026.” The statute cited by Brock’s

request states, “Should the independent executor not comply with a demand for accounting

authorized by this section within [sixty] days after receipt of the demand, the person making the

demand may compel compliance by an action in the probate court.” TEX. EST. CODE ANN.

§ 404.001(b). Brock and Tackett dispute earlier events in the case. Nonetheless, the record

provided to us shows that Brock was willing to accept an accounting provided by March 16,

2026.

Before March 16, 2026, Brock filed: (i) a motion to compel on January 28; (ii) a request

for submission or hearing on the motion on January 29; (iii) a request for ruling on February 19;

and then (iv) the present mandamus on March 10, 2026.

2
Tackett’s response in our Court states that he filed a verified accounting of the Estate in

the Harrison County Court at Law on March 13, 2026, and served it upon Brock at that time.

Brock filed a reply asserting that the trial court clerk had initially rejected the accounting and did

not accept it fully until March 20, 2026. Brock asserts that his mandamus is not moot because

the 1,600-page accounting, in his view, is deficient, and the trial court still needs to rule on his

motion to compel.

II. Standard of Review

“Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of

discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate

remedy at law.” In re Good Shepherd Hosp., Inc., 572 S.W.3d 315, 319 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

2019, orig. proceeding) (citing Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. 1994) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig.

proceeding)); see Paxton v. Am. Oversight, 716 S.W.3d 535, 540 (Tex. 2025) (“This Court often

issues the writ of mandamus—or does so provisionally—to compel a lower court to perform a

duty that is ‘simply ministerial and involves no judicial discretion.” (quoting Lloyd v. Brinck, 35

Tex. 1, 9 (Tex. 1872) (orig. proceeding))).

“Once a ruling has been requested on a motion pending before a trial court, the trial court

is required to consider and rule on a motion within a reasonable time.” In re Greenwell, 160

S.W.3d 286, 288 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding); see In re Cunningham, 454

S.W.3d 139, 143 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, orig. proceeding) (“To obtain mandamus relief

here, [Relator] must establish that: (1) the motion was properly filed and had been pending for a

3
reasonable time; (2) [he] requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court has either

refused to rule or failed to rule within a reasonable time.”).

III. Analysis

Brock petitioned for mandamus on March 10, 2026, seeking a ruling on a motion to

compel an accounting which, by Brock’s own request, was not due until March 16, 2026. Brock

was not entitled to the extraordinary writ as of the date of his petition.

As for dates afterwards, Brock has not developed a record showing whether his

complaints about the accounting he got fit within his motion to compel (i.e., to get) that

accounting, nor has he shown that he requested the trial court to rule on his post-receipt

complaints about that accounting.

We deny Brock’s requested mandamus relief.

Jeff Rambin
Justice

Date Submitted: April 24, 2026
Date Decided: April 27, 2026