Lynn Madison, a homeowner who disputed assessments by the Talise De Culebra Home Owners' Association, sued the Association and the law firm it hired to collect the assessments and begin foreclosure, Roberts Markel Weinberg Butler Hailey, PC (the Firm), on May 12, 2023, for unfair debt collection practices under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Texas Debt Collection Act, and the Texas fraudulent-lien statute, and to quiet title.¹ The Firm says Madison's suit complains of a lis pendens it filed for the Association, which the Firm says was protected petitioning activity.²

This is an original proceeding for writ of mandamus. The Firm moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), the Bexar County trial court denied the motion, and the Firm's appeal, which stayed all trial court proceedings, was transferred from the Fourth Court of Appeals to the Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso).¹ On May 30, 2024, the Eighth Court reversed, rendered dismissal of Madison's claims against the Firm, and remanded, and it denied rehearing on October 9, 2024; its mandate had not issued.² On November 1, 2024, before Madison's petition-for-review deadline had run, the Firm moved in the trial court for TCPA attorney's fees; the court held a hearing on November 15 over Madison's objection and on November 20 awarded fees and disposed of all claims against the Firm.³ Madison petitioned for review in this Court on November 22, 2024, and sought mandamus from the Fourth Court of Appeals, which denied it without opinion on December 18, 2024.⁴ This Court denied her petition for review on April 4, 2025, and decided this mandamus petition per curiam without oral argument on October 31, 2025, with Justice Hawkins not participating.⁵

Original petition for writ of mandamus after the Fourth Court of Appeals denied relief; decided per curiam without oral argument under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c) on October 31, 2025, with Justice Hawkins not participating.⁶

Madison presents one issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion by entertaining the fee motion, holding a hearing, and issuing a fee order before the appellate mandate issued and while appellate proceedings remained pending, in violation of the Section 51.014 automatic stay, and whether the court of appeals abused its discretion by refusing to vacate the order.¹ The Firm frames the question as when the TCPA appeal was "resolved".²

Mandamus is appropriate to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal, and there is generally no adequate appellate remedy for an order purporting to lift the interlocutory-appeal stay.¹

Whether the TCPA appeal stay was still in effect when the fee order issued.

Relator (Madison): The statute stays all trial court proceedings pending resolution of the appeal, proceedings in an interlocutory appeal do not conclude until the appellate court issues its mandate, and the mandate had not issued (and her petition for review was still pending), so the trial court had no authority to consider the fee motion or issue the order.¹

Real Party in Interest (the Firm): The appeal was "resolved" for purposes of Section 51.014(b) when the court of appeals lost plenary power on November 8, 2024, thirty days after rehearing was denied, before the hearing and order; Rule 18.6 and Freeport-McMoRan concern when a judgment takes effect or is final, and the Legislature did not use "final" in the statute.²

Waiver and harmless error.

Real Party in Interest (the Firm): Madison waived the stay argument by not raising it in the trial court, and any error is harmless because the trial court could simply issue the same fee award now.³

Relator (Madison): She objected in the trial court that the court of appeals had not issued its mandate and its decision was not final.⁴

Madison argued that the Court may issue mandamus against a district judge who holds proceedings in violation of the TCPA stay while interlocutory appellate proceedings remain pending.¹

None

Holding

An interlocutory appeal from the denial of a TCPA motion to dismiss is not resolved, and the automatic stay does not expire, until the appellate mandate issues; the trial court therefore clearly abused its discretion by entertaining the fee motion and issuing a case-dispositive order while the stay was in effect.¹

Reasoning

A perfected TCPA interlocutory appeal automatically stays all trial court proceedings "pending resolution of that appeal," and Section 51.014 has no exceptions to its mandatory stay.² An appellate court's judgment on an interlocutory appeal takes effect when the mandate issues, and a court of appeals' decision is not final until then, so the mandate marks the actual resolution of the appeal; the expiration of plenary power under Rule 19.1 does not substitute for it.³ The mandate could not issue while the time to petition this Court had not expired, so the court of appeals' judgment was not final, the stay remained in force, and the trial court's order was voidable.⁴

Madison did not waive her objection, because she timely argued in the trial court that the motion was improper while the appeal was pending and no mandate had issued, and courts should reach the merits whenever possible.⁵ There is generally no adequate remedy by appeal for an order purporting to lift the stay, so mandamus is appropriate.⁶ Because the Court has since denied review and the mandate has issued, the trial court may resolve pending matters, but it may not simply reinstate its earlier decisions and must consider the parties' positions anew if a party requests.⁷

Disposition

Mandamus conditionally granted; the trial court is directed to vacate its order awarding attorney's fees to, and disposing of all claims against, the Firm, and the writ will issue only if it does not comply.⁸

Vote Breakdown

Per Curiam Opinion

Joined by Blacklock, C.J., and Bland, Busby, Devine, Huddle, Lehrmann, Sullivan, and Young, JJ.

Did Not Participate

Hawkins, J.