Court Opinion

ID: 9556707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 07:11:05.179346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:52.217002
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              __________________

                              NO. 09-22-00228-CV
                              __________________

TYLER EPSTEIN, TRUSTEE OF THE ELMWOOD REVOCABLE TRUST,
                         Appellant

                                        V.

  THOMAS TIMBER INVESTMENTS, LLC, FOSTER TIMBER, LTD.,
 RED HORSE LAND AND CATTLE, LLC, MCADAMS PROPERTIES,
LTD., JOHNNIE L. WADE, JAMES W. HOBSON, DENISLA K. HOBSON,
 MICHAEL R. THOMAS, LEE ANN THOMAS, MAGGIE BANKSTON,
   DOUGLAS BANKSTON, AND MICHAEL BANKSTON, Appellees

 ________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 411th District Court
                         Polk County, Texas
                     Trial Cause No. CIV21-0338
__________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In this interlocutory appeal, Tyler Epstein, Trustee of the Elmwood Revocable

Trust, appealed from the trial court’s Temporary Injunction Order of June 29, 2022.

While the appeal was pending with this Court, a bench trial was held on the merits

of the case. A supplemental clerk’s record was filed that includes a Final Judgment

                                        1
signed on May 25, 2023, and the Final Judgment includes language that dissolved

the temporary injunction being appealed and disposed of all claims and parties.

      On June 30, 2023, this Court notified the parties of the filing of the

supplemental record and requested that the parties file a response explaining why

the accelerated appeal should not be dismissed as moot. Appellant filed a response,

acknowledging that once the trial court’s judgment becomes final, this appeal will

be moot and should be dismissed. Appellees filed a response, arguing that “[t]here

is no need to dismiss the present appeal as it should be included in any future appeal

from the trial court’s Final Judgment[,]” and that “the temporary injunction, and the

appeal therefrom, should be maintained as to preserve the property” of certain

Appellees/Defendants that were granted summary judgment.

      “If, while on the appeal of the granting or denying of the temporary injunction,

the trial court renders final judgment, the case on appeal becomes moot.” Isuani v.

Manske-Sheffield Radiology Grp., 802 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991); see Qwest

Communs. Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. 2000) (A temporary

injunction usually operates until dissolved or until a final hearing.); Nat’l Collegiate

Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999) (When a temporary injunction

becomes inoperative because it has been dissolved by the trial court, the issue of its

validity is moot and an appellate court decision regarding the temporary injunction’s

validity would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion.).

                                           2
       Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.3(a); Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012) (When

an appeal becomes moot, the appellate court must dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction).

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                                   PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 26, 2023
Opinion Delivered August 17, 2023

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

                                         3