The Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted mandamus relief in *In re Lynn Madison* (2025), rebuking a trial court for violating statutory stay provisions during a pending Texas Citizens Participation Act appeal.
The per curiam opinion, issued without Justice Hawkins' participation, reinforced the mandatory nature of automatic stays that take effect when parties appeal denials of TCPA motions to dismiss. The court held that trial courts lack authority to entertain motions or issue orders while such appeals remain pending.
The case arose from unfair debt collection practice claims that Lynn Madison asserted against Talise De Culebra Home Owners Association, Inc. and Roberts Markel Weinberg Butler Hailey, PC. The claims related to the collection of past-due assessments and initiation of foreclosure proceedings against Madison's property.
Roberts Markel filed a TCPA motion to dismiss Madison's claims, which the trial court denied. The law firm appealed the denial, triggering an automatic stay of all trial court proceedings under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The court of appeals subsequently reversed the trial court's denial, rendered judgment in favor of the law firm, and remanded the case.
Madison filed a timely motion for rehearing and en banc reconsideration with the court of appeals, which was denied. However, before Madison could seek review from the Texas Supreme Court and before the appellate court's mandate could issue, the law firm moved for TCPA attorney's fees in the trial court.
Despite the ongoing statutory stay, the trial court entertained the motion for attorney's fees. After briefing and a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and disposed of all claims against the law firm. This action occurred while Madison's petition for review was pending before the Texas Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found that the trial court acted without authority when it entertained the motion and issued the order during the statutory stay period. "The court had no authority to undertake those actions because the court of appeals' mandate had not yet issued," the court wrote.
The Texas Citizens Participation Act, also known as Texas's anti-SLAPP statute, provides broad protections against strategic lawsuits aimed at chilling free speech and participation in government. When a party appeals the denial of a TCPA motion to dismiss, the law creates an automatic stay that halts all trial court proceedings until the appeal is resolved.
The Supreme Court emphasized that this stay operates "by operation of law" and remains in effect until the appeal has been fully resolved. The statutory framework is designed to prevent trial courts from proceeding with litigation while appellate courts determine whether claims should be dismissed under the TCPA.
In granting conditional mandamus relief, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to vacate its attorney's fees order and "proceed to resolve the case without reference to any actions it took when it acted without authority." The remedy ensures that the trial court cannot rely on orders issued during the improper period when it lacked jurisdiction.
The court noted that "given the procedural issue that we must resolve, the underlying background is immaterial." This language suggests the Supreme Court focused narrowly on the procedural violation rather than the merits of the underlying debt collection dispute.
Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy typically reserved for situations where lower courts exceed their jurisdiction or fail to perform mandatory duties. The Supreme Court's willingness to grant such relief underscores the importance of respecting statutory stays in TCPA appeals.
The decision reinforces established precedent regarding automatic stays in anti-SLAPP appeals and serves as a reminder to trial courts about the binding nature of such provisions. When appellate courts have not yet issued their mandates, trial courts must refrain from taking any substantive action on the underlying case.
The ruling also highlights the timing issues that can arise in complex litigation involving multiple levels of appellate review. The case demonstrates how procedural missteps can lead to wasted judicial resources and require corrective action from higher courts.
For practitioners handling TCPA cases, the decision emphasizes the importance of monitoring appeal status and ensuring compliance with statutory stay provisions. Trial courts must wait for appellate mandates before resuming proceedings, regardless of the practical pressures to move cases forward.
The Supreme Court's per curiam treatment suggests the legal principles were sufficiently clear that extensive analysis was unnecessary. Such treatment typically indicates that the court viewed the trial court's error as straightforward rather than involving complex legal questions.
Moving forward, the trial court must vacate its unauthorized order and await proper resolution of the appellate proceedings before considering any motions for attorney's fees or other substantive relief. The case will proceed according to the proper procedural framework once the appellate process concludes and the mandate issues.