Court Opinion

ID: 9554475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 07:08:09.421741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:22.578559
License: Public Domain

Dismiss and Opinion Filed August 2, 2023

                                      In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00211-CV

           RONNIE WADE AND CAROLYN WADE, Appellants
                             V.
         BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016, LLC, Appellee

                On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-05861-B

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Pedersen, III
                           Opinion by Justice Molberg
      The only issue in this forcible detainer appeal is whether the trial court

properly determined appellee had a superior right of possession to certain property

occupied by appellants. See Marshall v. Housing Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198

S.W.3d 782, 785, 787 (Tex. 2006). By verified motion, appellee informs the Court

that appellants are no longer in possession of the property and urges we dismiss the

appeal because the case has become moot. See Olley v. HVM, L.L.C., 449 S.W.3d

573, 575 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (appellate courts lack

jurisdiction over moot controversies). Appellee also asks we award it attorney’s fees
and costs. Although appellee’s motion has been on file for more than ten days,

appellants have not filed a response or otherwise refuted appellee’s contention.

      Unless a tenant has “a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual

possession of the property,” the issue of possession in a forcible detainer action

becomes moot when the tenant vacates the property. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at

782. When the issue becomes moot on appeal and no other issues exist, the appellate

court must vacate the underlying judgment and dismiss the entire underlying case.

See id. at 785, 790.

      We deny appellee’s motion to the extent appellee requests attorney’s fees and

costs, but, with nothing before us showing appellants have a potentially meritorious

claim of right to current possession of the property, we grant the motion to the extent

appellee asserts the case has become moot. We vacate the trial court’s final

judgment and dismiss the case. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 785, 790.

                                            /Ken Molberg//
230211f.p05                                 KEN MOLBERG
                                            JUSTICE

                                         –2–
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                JUDGMENT

RONNIE WADE AND CAROLYN                     On Appeal from the County Court at
WADE, Appellants                            Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas
                                            Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-05861-
No. 05-23-00211-CV         V.               B.
                                            Opinion delivered by Justice
BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY                       Molberg, Chief Justice Burns and
FUND 2016, LLC, Appellee                    Justice Pedersen, III participating.

      In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we VACATE the trial
court’s March 6, 2023 final judgment and DISMISS the case.

Judgment entered this 2nd day of August 2023.

                                      –3–