Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00673-CV

Robert STRICKER,

Appellant

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR

MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPTIAL I INC. TRUST 2006-HE8 MORTGAGE

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-HE8,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 15, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CV01903

Honorable Melissa Vara, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 22, 2023

VACATED AND DISMISSED

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding possession in a forcible detainer action. The 

issue of possession in a forcible detainer action becomes moot if the judgment is not timely 

superseded, the appellant is no longer in possession, and the appellant does not have a potentially 

meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession. See Briones v. Brazos Bend Villa Apts., 

438 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). If a case is moot, we must 

dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. See id.
04-22-00673-CV

- 2 -

In this case, we issued a show cause order on December 21, 2022, noting a writ of 

possession had issued, and appellant had not filed a bond to supersede the judgment. We directed 

appellant to file a response explaining why this case should not be dismissed. 

On January 5, 2023, appellant, acting pro se, moved for a thirty-day extension of time to 

file his response to this court’s December 21, 2022 order, explaining he was “ill from contracting 

covid 19.” We granted the motion and ordered appellant to file a response no later than January 

30, 2023. On January 30, 2023, appellant moved for a second extension of time of five days, 

explaining “his family [is] still recovering [f]rom medical issues after contracting Covid” and he 

would “work hard to get it done before the deadline.” We granted appellant’s motion and ordered 

appellant to file his response to this court’s order no later than February 6, 2023. On February 6, 

2023, appellant moved for a third extension of time, seeking thirty days, and explaining he and 

“his family are still recovering [f]rom medical issues after contracting Covid due to being evicted 

and put out on the street.” We granted the motion in part, ordering appellant to file his response to 

this court’s order, if any, no later than March 1, 2023. We further explained “[n]o further extension 

of time will be granted absent a motion that demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying 

further delay and advises the court of the efforts expended in preparing a response to the court’s 

order.”

Appellant did not file a timely response. Instead, appellant filed a fourth motion for an 

extension of time explaining he had been hospitalized and was “recently discharged.”1 However, 

appellant did not identify efforts expended in preparing a response to the court’s December 21, 

2022 order or otherwise identify why this appeal is not moot.

1 Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company opposed the fourth motion for an extension of time, explaining 

appellant “had ample time to respond.”
04-22-00673-CV

- 3 -

Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss this case as moot. See id.

PER CURIAM