Motion granted, Appeal dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed 

November 21, 2023. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-23-00503-CV

____________

PEDRO RAMIREZ AND ALMA RAMIREZ, Appellants

V.

ALICIA PEREZ, Appellee

On Appeal from the 454th District Court

Medina County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16-12-23965-CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the court is appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal for mootness. 

Appellants have filed a response. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

This is an appeal from a judgment signed March 13, 2023 adjudicating rights 

in a tract of real property in Medina County, holding that appellee held title in the 

property and appellants did not. Appellants timely appealed from that judgment, 
2

but they never filed a supersedeas bond or other security to suspend the judgment. 

On March 15, 2023, appellee signed a deed conveying the contested property to 

her daughter, who was not a party to the trial court proceeding. On June 29, 2023, 

the daughter in turn signed a deed conveying the property to a trust, which has as 

co-trustees two individuals who likewise were not parties to the trial court 

proceeding. Appellee’s motion contends the changes in ownership render this 

appeal moot and require its dismissal.

Texas courts of appeals are prohibited from deciding moot controversies. 

See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). “A case 

becomes moot if at any stage there ceases to be an actual controversy between the 

parties.” Id. (citation omitted). The transfer of rights to contested property, even a 

transfer precipitated by a party to an appeal, can indeed render a case moot. See 

FDIC v. Nueces Cnty., 886 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex. 1994).

The trial court’s judgment resolved which of the parties to this appeal owned 

property rights in the Medina County property. But now, it appears that none of 

the parties to this appeal have any legal rights to the property. We conclude this

case is moot. The El Paso Court of Appeals reached such a result under similar 

facts in Dominguez v. Dominguez, 583 S.W.3d 365 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2019, pet. 

denied). That case essentially involved a dispute over which of the two parties 

owned contested property. Id. at 367. The trial court ultimately held that the 

appellee was the property’s sole owner and rendered judgment accordingly. Id. 

But while the appeal was pending, the appellee stated he sold the disputed property 

to someone else, and the appellant did not dispute that assertion. Id. at 371. The 

court of appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court’s judgment 

insofar as it adjudicated ownership of the property, as any decision from the court
3

of appeals could not “have a practical effect on the ownership rights of the 

property.”

1

Id.

We are persuaded by Dominguez and conclude the same result is warranted 

here. Appellants’ attempt to distinguish Dominguez from this case is not 

persuasive. The judgment appellant is challenging here solely adjudicated who 

owns the disputed Medina County property. And because appellant did not

supersede the judgment while the appeal was pending, none of the parties own the 

property now. In line with the Dominguez decision, that moots this appeal.

Accordingly, appellee’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM 

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson.

1 The court of appeals also concluded a challenge regarding the appellee’s counterclaim for 

tortious interference with a contract was not mooted, as that challenge did not contest “relief 

dependent on possession of the property.” Id. Even so, the court of appeals concluded the 

challenge to the counterclaim failed on the merits. Id. at 372–73.