Vacated and Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 4 , 2022
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00018

- CV
MONIQUE NABORS , Appellant

V. COPPER GROVE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 133rd District Court

Harris County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. 2020

- 40801

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a final judgment signed December 16, 2021 awarding appellee , a h omeowner ’ s a ssociatio n ( “ the Association ” ) , damages, costs, and attorneys’ fee s with interest

. After appellant fi l ed her notice of appeal , the Association filed a full sa tisfaction and release of judgment . On appeal, the hom eowner appellant , Monique Nabors ( “ N a bors ” ) , argues the trial court ’ s judgment shou ld be set a si de because she made payments sat isfying the amo un t in dis pute before the final judgm ent was signed. The Association ur ges the court to2

dismiss the appeal as moot. We agree the appeal is moot , dismiss the appeal , and vacate the judgment of the trial court

. Background
T he record reflects the Associatio n s u ed Nabo rs for delinquen t assessments , interest , attorne ys ’ fees and to foreclose on its lie n on the property as provided by the decl aration governing Nabor s ’ property. On D e cember 1 6 , 202 1, t he trial court granted the Association ’ s motion for summary j u dg m ent . Th e judgment did not provide for foreclosure on Na bor s ’ property. In its appell a t e brief, the Associat ion explains that Nabors made several partial pay ments toward her delinquent balance after the motion for summa ry judgment was file d, but before t he judgment was signed. According to the brief, Nab ors mad e a payment three days before the D e cember 13, 202 1 hearing. According to the A ssoc iation , Nabors ’ payments were not su fficient to sati sfy the ent ire delinquency

. Additionally, a t the time of heari n g

a nd subsequent signing of the judgment , the Associat ion had not receiv ed confirmation that the payments had clea red

. The Association c onten ds that at the hearing, it ac knowledge d receipt of the payments a nd, in lig ht of the paym ents, the Association su b mi t ted a modified proposed judgment accounting for Nabor s ’ payments and dropping the request to foreclose on its li en. The record does not ref lect that Nabors filed a response to the Association ’ s motion for summary judgme nt. In her brief, Nabors argues t h at she had n o notice of the summary judgment hearing. Th is court ordered a supplemental clerk ’ s record reflecting that notice of hearing was filed in the trial court on O c tober 22, 202 1. That doc ument ind icates it was provided to Nabors by registere d

ce rt i fi e d mail, return receipt requested.
The Association states that after the trial court signed the judgment, Nabors
pa id the Associati on amounts suffici ent to satis fy the final judg me nt

. According t o3

th e Association, after receiving Nabors ’ final payment , it executed and filed its full

sa tisfaction and release of judgment

. Th is court ordered a su p plem ental clerk ’ s record showin g that document was filed with t he trial court on January 26, 2022.
The record is devoid of any filing on behalf of Nabors w ith the ex c eption of h er notice of appeal , to which she attached copies of the checks she pai d the A ssociation.
Mootness
We must first address the Association ’ s mootness c laim, because mootness is a threshold is sue that implicate s sub ject matter jurisdiction. See Sp e er v. P resbyterian Children ’ s Home & Serv. Agency , 847 S.W.2d 227, 229 ( T ex. 1993)

. The mootness doctrine prevents courts from rendering advisory opinions, wh ich are outside the jurisdiction conferred by artic le II, section 1 of the Texas Constitution

. Se e Valley Bap tist Med. Ctr. v
. Gonzalez , 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 ( Tex. 2000). An issue may become moot when a par ty seeks a ruling on some matter which, when rendere d, would not have any prac tical legal effect on a then

- existing

con troversy. In re H&R Block F i n. Advisors, Inc. , 262 S.W.3d 896, 900 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). Stated differently, an issue may be moot if it becomes impossible for the court to grant eff ectual relief for any reason. See Williams v. Lara , 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 20 0 1). A controversy must exist between the parties at every stage of the legal procee dings, includi ng appea l. Id

. Generally, when a judgment debtor voluntar ily pays and satisfies a judg ment against him, he waives his right to appeal, and the cause must b e d ismissed as
moot. Marshall v. Hous ing Auth

. of City of San Antoni o , 198 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2006) ; Tierra Sol Joint Venture v. City of El Paso , 311 S.W.3d 492, 497 (Tex. App.

—

El Paso 2009, no pet) (releas e of appel la nts f rom port ion o f liability in ju dg m ent renders th ose questions on appeal moot )

. The rule is intended to4

prevent a party who voluntarily sa tisfies a judgment from later changing his or her mind and appealing. Id

. “ Voluntary pa yment end s the controversy, and appell ate courts will not de ci de m oot cases involving abstractions. ” H ighland Churc h of Christ v. Powe ll , 640 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1982).
If a case is moot on appeal, the appellate court is required to vacate any judgment or order in the trial court and dismiss the case. See Reule v. RL Z Invs ., 411 S.W.3d 31, 32 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (vacating trial court judgment where appellee released appellant from judgment on appeal) , citing, Speer , 847 S.W.2d at 2 28 ( vacating judgment o f the court of appeal s and of the t ria l cou rt and dismiss i ng the case as moot) ; City of Dallas v. Woodf ield , 305 S.W.3d 412, 416 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2010, no pet.) (vacating trial court ’ s interlocutory order where controversy became moot during appeal) ; Thompson v. Ricardo , 260 S.W.3d 100, 10 5 ( T ex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (vacating portion of trial court ’ s order rendered moot on appeal)

. The Assoc iation

“ wh olly release [d] its r ight to recover p urs uant to the said Judgment ” in its satisfaction and release of judgment. Therefo r e , a live controversy no longer exists , and the case is rendered moot. See Reule , 411 S.W.3d at 32.
Con clusio n
Because it is uncontested that the judgm en t has be en v oluntarily sati sfied and released by the Association, we hold the appeal is moot

. See Goa d v. C ou n ty of Guadalu pe , No. 04

- 14

- 00497

- CV, 2016 WL 40 2332 at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio F e b 3, 2016 , pet. denied ) (voluntary pay ment of judgment render s appeal moot) ; F.D.I.C . v. S

pring Branch I

ndependent School Dist. , No. 14

- 91

- 00899

- CV, 1992 W L 11 7402 at * 1 (T ex. App.

— Houston [14 th Dist.] June 4, 1992 , no writ ) (voluntary payment of judgment renders appeal moot)

. Accordingly , we vacate the judgment of th e trial court and dismiss the appeal as mo ot. See Mars hall , 1 985

S.W.3d at 78 7, citing , Speer , 847 S.W.2d a t 230 ; Woodf ield , 305 S.W. 3d at 416 ( “ If a case is moot, the appellate court is required to vacate any judgment or order in the trial court and dismiss the case. ” ).

PER CURIAM
Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Wi lson.