Judge ignoring Motions – What can I do

_______________________________
William Michael Windsor
100 East Oak Terrace Drive, Unit B3
Leesburg, Florida 34748
352-577-9988
windsorinmontana@yahoo.com

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA

William M. Windsor,
Plaintiff,

vs.                                                                                                                                    Case No. 35-2020-CA-001647

Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Association, Inc.,
Defendant.
                                                    _______________________________________________________________________________________
                                    
ORDER ON FINAL DEMAND FOR HEARING

            THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Final Demand for Hearing on Motion for Stay.  This Court, having considered the motion, applicable law, the court file, and being otherwise fully advised of the premises, finds as follows:

A Hearing is appropriate.

It is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The Plaintiff’s Final Demand for Hearing on Motion for Stay is hereby GRANTED.   

DONE and ORDERED this ______ day of ____________________, 2021,

                                                                        _________________________________________

                                                                        Judge Presiding

               I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent to:

William Michael Windsor
100 East Oak Terrace Drive, Unit B3
Leesburg, Florida 34748
352-577-9988
windsorinmontana@yahoo.com

Christina Bredahl Gierke
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
Tower Place, Ste 400, 1900 Summit Tower Blvd, Orlando, FL 32810
Telephone 321-972-0025, Facsimile 321-972-0099
christina.gierke@csklegal.com
 

This _______ day of ___________________________, 2021,

                                                                        _______________________________________

H.   File a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Appellate Court

When the judge does not respond to the DEMAND, you must file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus wit the appellate court to ask that court to compel the Trial Court Judge to act.

Research your state’s case law.  If you don’t have the necessay tools, email windorinmontana@yahoo.com, and I will try to do it to supplement this article for everyone’s benefit.

I had to research Texas Case Law on this issue.  Here’s what I found:

“When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is ministerial. White v. Reiter, 640 S.W.2d 586, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). The trial court has no discretion to refuse to act, but must consider and rule upon the motion within a reasonable time. Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426.” (In re Lockett, No. 2-08-452-CV (Tex.App. Dist.2 06/16/2009).) [emphasis added.]

“When a motion is properly pending before a trial court, the act of considering and ruling on it is a ministerial act. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to rule on pretrial motions that have been properly presented to it within a reasonable time. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding).” (In re Webb, 07-15-00050-CV (Tex.App. Dist.7 07/21/2015).)

“When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is a ministerial act. See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall 35 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 707 (1992) (mandamus conditionally issued to compel trial court to conduct a hearing); State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex.App.–El Paso 1987, orig. proceeding) (en banc). In such circumstances, a trial court must consider and rule upon the motion within what, when all the surrounding circumstances are taken into account, constitutes a reasonable time. See Kissam v. Williamson, 545 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex.App.–Tyler 1976, orig. proceeding) (under statute permitting mandamus to compel lower court to proceed to trial and judgment but silent as to time, mandamus would issue when lower court had not acted ‘within a reasonable time’); see also Crouch v. Shields, 385 S.W.2d 580, 582 (Tex.App.–Dallas 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (where probate judge had had more than a ‘reasonable time’ to consider merits of application but still refused to act, district court properly issued writ of mandamus compelling probate judge to hold hearing). This rule does not intrude upon the trial court’s discretion, because a trial court has no discretion to refuse to act. The trial court’s judicial discretion extends instead to its decision how to rule after it considers a motion properly before it, — and an appeals court may not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to rule a certain way on that motion. Womack v. Berry, 156 Tex. 44, 291 S.W.2d 677, 682 (Tex. 1956). We review the rulings produced by the exercise of that judicial power in the normal appellate process. A refusal to rule within a reasonable time would demonstrate that process and, moreover, would constitute a denial of due course of law, Baluch v. Miller, 774 S.W.2d 299, 301-302 (Tex.App.–Dallas 1989, orig. proceeding).” (Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).)

“When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon the motion is a ministerial act. See Eli Lilly Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992); see also Tex. State Bd. of Examiners in Optometry v. Carp, 388 S.W.2d 409, 417 (Tex. 1965) (writ will issue to compel trial court to proceed to judgment). In such circumstances, a trial court must consider and rule upon the motion within a reasonable amount of time. See, e.g., Crouch v. Shields, 385 S.W.2d 580, 582 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (finding district court properly issued mandamus compelling probate court to act on application for probate); In re Shredder Co., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2006, orig. proceeding) (finding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to rule on Father’s motion to compel arbitration); Kissam v. Williamson, 545 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1976, orig. proceeding) (compelling trial court to proceed to trial and judgment). A trial court’s discretion extends to its decision on how to rule on a motion properly before it, and an appellate court then reviews the rulings produced by that judicial power in the normal appellate process. See Baluch v. Miller, 774 S.W.2d 299, 301-02 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1989, orig. proceeding). A refusal to rule within a reasonable time frustrates that purpose and constitutes a denial of due course of law. Id. Consequently, mandamus is available to compel a trial court to make a ruling within a reasonable time. See Marshall, 829 S.W.2d at 158. A reasonable amount of time is determined by the circumstances of the case. Shredder, 225 S.W.3d at 679.” (In re Maasoumi, No. 05-08-01074-CV (Tex.App. Dist.5 11/13/2008).)

“When a relator complains the trial court failed or refused to hear and rule on a pending motion, the relator’s burden includes demonstrating the trial court had a legal duty to perform; performance was demanded; and the trial court refused to act. Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979) (orig. proceeding).” (In re Webb, 07-15-00050-CV (Tex.App. Dist.7 07/21/2015.)

I.     Even More Options

I file judicial misconduct compaints.  I file motions to seek recusal or disqualification of the judge.  I attempt to get criminal charges brought against the judges for obstruction of justice.  But I am hated by dishonest and corrupt judges, so be careful.

William M. Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions.  Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response.   This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law.  This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption.   Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our Legal Notice and Terms. 

www.LawlessAmerica.com — www.facebook.com/billwindsor1 — www.facebook.com/LawlessAmerica — www.twitter.com/lawlessamerica — www.youtube.com/lawlessamerica 

{jcomments on}