Court Opinion

ID: 9890709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-14 06:10:33.811081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:04.345540
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed October 12, 2023

                                       In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                    ___________

                                 No. 11-15-00222-CV
                                    ___________

ELLIOTT HARVEY D/B/A PIONEER NATURALS PET FOODS,
                     Appellant
                                          V.
         ADVANCED MARKETING GROUP, LLC, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 259th District Court
                             Jones County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. 023133

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Appellant, Elliott Harvey d/b/a Pioneer Naturals Pet Foods, timely filed an
appeal from the trial court’s judgment in favor of Appellee. Several months later,
Appellant filed in this court a suggestion of bankruptcy. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.1.
We abated this appeal and requested that the parties keep this court informed
regarding the bankruptcy proceedings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2, 8.3. In this regard,
over the past several years, we have requested, by letter, that the parties inform this
court of the status of the bankruptcy proceedings or any other event that would allow
this appeal to be reinstated. In response to our most recent request, Appellee
provided this court with documents from the bankruptcy proceeding that indicate
that the debt that is the subject of this appeal was discharged by the bankruptcy court.
Counsel for Appellant also responded and stated that Appellant is now deceased.
      After receiving the notification from Appellee regarding the discharge in
bankruptcy, we informed the parties by letter that it appeared that we lack
jurisdiction of this appeal. See Chae v. Schneider, 244 S.W.3d 425, 427 (Tex.
App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.). We requested a response from the parties regarding
whether the parties agreed with this court’s assessment that the debt was discharged
in bankruptcy. In our letter, we also advised the parties that the case may be
reinstated at the end of the 10-day period and dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Neither of the parties responded to our letter.
      Because the debt that is the subject of this appeal has been discharged
in bankruptcy, this appeal is moot. See Chae, 244 S.W.3d at 427. We lack
jurisdiction “to decide a moot controversy” and therefore must dismiss this appeal.
See id. (quoting Schultz v. Barnes, No. 07-04-00424-CV, 2006 WL 2051390, at *1
(Tex. App.—Amarillo July 24, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.)); see also TEX. R.
APP. P. 7.1(a)(1) (If a party to a civil case dies after the judgment but prior to the
final disposition of the appeal, the appellate court “will proceed to adjudicate the
appeal as if all parties were alive.”).
      Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

                                               W. STACY TROTTER
October 12, 2023                               JUSTICE
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                           2