Motion granted , Appeal d ismissed , and Me morandum Opinion filed

November 21 , 202 3

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 2 3

- 00 503

- CV

____________ PEDRO RAMIREZ AND ALMA RAMIREZ , Appellant s
V.

ALICIA PEREZ , Appe llee

On Appeal from th e 454th D istrict Cou rt Medina C o unt y, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. 16

- 12

- 23965

- CV



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court is appellee ’ s motion to dismiss this appeal for mootness

. Appellant s ha ve filed a response. We grant t he motion and dismiss the appe al.

This is an appeal from a judgment signed March 13, 2023 adju dicating r ights in a tract of real property in Medina County , holding th at a ppellee held title in the property and appellants did not. Appellants timely appealed from th at judgment,2

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

. On March 1 5 , 2023, appellee signed a deed conveying the contested prop erty to her daughter, who was n o t a party to the trial court proceeding. On June 29, 2023, the daughter in turn signed a deed co nveying the property to a trust, which has a s

co

- tru stees two individuals who likewise were not parties to the trial court proceeding. Appellee ’ s motion contends the changes in ownership render this appeal m oot and require its dismissal.

Texa s courts of appeals are prohibited from deciding mo ot controversies.
See Nat ’ l Coll egiate Athletic Ass ’ n v. Jones , 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). “ A ca se becomes moot if at a n y stage t here ceases to be an actual controver sy between the parties

. ” Id. (citatio n omitted)

. The transfer of rights to contested property , even a transfer precipitated by a party to an appe al, can indeed render a case moot

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

The tri al court ’ s jud gment resolved which of the parties to this appeal owned property rights in the M edina Count y property. But now, it appears that none of
the p arties to this appeal have any legal rights to the property . We con clude this

case is moot

. The El Pas o 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 essent ially involved a dispu te over which of the two parties
owned contested property. Id. at 367. Th e trial court ultimately held that the appellee was the property ’ s sole owne r and rendered judgment accordingly. Id.
But while the a ppeal was pending, the appellee stated he sold the disputed property to someone else, an d the app ellant did not dis pute tha t assertion. Id. at 371. The court of appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court ’s judgment insofar as it adjudi cated ownership of the property, as any decision from the court3

of appeals could no t “have a practical effect on the o wnership rights of the property. ” 1 Id.

We are persuaded by Domin guez and conclude the same result is warranted
here. Appellants ’ attempt to dis tinguish Dominguez from this case is not persuasive. The judgment a ppellan t is chal leng ing here sole l y adjudi cated who

owns the disputed M edina County prop erty. A nd because appella nt did not supersed e the judgment while the appeal was pending, n one of the parties own the property now. In line with the Dominguez decisio n, that m oot s this appeal.
Acco rdingly, a ppellee ’ s motion to dismiss is gra nted, and the appeal is d ismissed

.

P ER CURIAM
Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wi lso n

.

1 The court of appeals also concluded a challenge regar di ng the appellee ’ s counterclai m for
to rtious interference with a contract was not mooted, as that challenge did not contest “ relief dependent on possession of the property. ” Id. Even so, t he court of appeal s concluded the challenge to the counterclaim f ailed on the merits. Id. at 372

– 73.