## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

_________

__________________ N o. 02

- 20

- 00014

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019

- 006995

- 1
Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, J J. Memorandu m Opinion by Justice Kerr 

### D ANIEL 

### L. R

ATLIFF AND 

### C ONNIE 

### L. R ATLIFF 

### , Appellants
V 

### . H OMES BY 

### A SHLEY 

### , I NC 

### . , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION In this forcible

- deta iner appeal, D an iel and Connie Rat liff appeal f rom the trial
court ’ s Oc tober 9, 2019 judgment awarding Homes by Ashley , I n c . possession of real property and court costs
. On October 29, 2019 , the Ratliff s filed a mandamus pe titio n challengi ng the postjudgment proceedings in the trial court
. See In re Ratliff , No. 02

- 19

- 00402

- CV, 2019 WL 5655 25 3, at *1 (T ex. App.

— Fort Worth Oct. 31, 2019 , orig. proceed ing [ma nd. denied] ) (per curiam) (mem. op. )
. In t heir p etition, th e Ratliffs acknowledged that they had been evicted from the p ropert y . Additionally, t he con stabl e ’ s return in the mandamus record re flects that the constable exe cuted the writ of possessio n on Oc tober 17, 20 19 , and delivered possession of th e property to Ash ley H o mes . The only issue in a fo r cible

- detainer action is the right to actual possession of the property. Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of San Antonio , 198 S.W.3d 782, 785 (Tex. 2006)
. A forc ible

- detaine r appeal thus b ecomes moot up on an appellan t ’ s eviction from the pr operty unless the appellant holds and asserts a meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property or unless damages or attorney ’ s fees

re main at i ssue . See Wilson v. The Bluffs at Parad i se Cre ek , No. 02

- 14

- 00196

- CV, 2015 WL 9598921, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Dec. 31, 2015, pet
. dism ’ d w .o.j
. ) (per

cu riam ) (mem. op.); Daft

ary v. Prestonwood Mkt. Square, Ltd
. , 399 S.W.3d 708, 711 (Tex. A p p. — Dallas 2013, pet. denied) (o p. o n reh ’ g)
. S ee ge nerally Williams v. L ara , 52 S.W.3d3

171, 184 (Tex. 2001) ( explaining that a case bec omes moot if a controversy c eases to exist between the parties at any stage of the proceeding)
. Because the Ratliffs were evicted from the prope rty , we notifi ed them of our

c oncern that t h eir app eal is moot and that we thu s lack jurisdiction over it
. We warn ed them that we might di smiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless , wi thin ten days , they filed a response showing grounds for co ntinuing it. See Tex
. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 4 4.3. More than ten day s have passed , and w e have received no response. Here, the trial court did not award damages or attorney ’ s fee s. B ecause the Rat liff s have not filed a response showing that they hold and assert a meritori ous cla im of rig ht to current, actual possession of the propert y, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction
. See Te x. R. App. P. 4 2.3 (a) , (c) , 43.2(f) ; see, e.g. , Page v. Ce rberus SFR H o ldings , L.P. , No. 02

- 19

- 00059

- CV, 2019 WL 4124380, at *1 (Tex. Ap p. — Fort W orth Au g. 29, 2019, no pet. ) (me m. op . ) ; Wilson , 2015 WL 9598921, at *1 ; Stillwell v. AH 4R I TX, LLC

, No. 02

- 13

- 00437

- CV, 2014 WL 166 8475, at *1 (Tex. Ap p. — Fort Worth A pr. 24, 2014, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op. ).
/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Eliza beth Kerr Justice Deliv ered: March 5, 2020