Court Opinion

ID: 9939984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 15:13:42.017267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:09.473117
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                          No. 04-23-00918-CV

                                         Cortlandt OVERBAY,
                                               Appellant

                                                    v.

                  FRANKEL FAMILY TRUST D/B/A Sedona Ranch Apartments,
                                    Appellee

                      From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas
                                  Trial Court No. 2023-CV-05195
                           Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Beth Watkins, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 7, 2024

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

           This is an appeal in a forcible detainer action in which the clerk’s record shows the county

court at law signed a judgment of possession in favor of appellee on October 6, 2023. The clerk’s

record does not show that appellant paid a supersedeas bond to stay execution of the judgment.

The record shows the county court at law subsequently issued a writ of possession to enforce the

October 6 judgment, and the writ of possession was executed on November 9, 2023. The officer’s

return states that on the date the writ was executed, appellant’s personal possessions were removed
                                                                                      04-23-00918-CV

from the premises, the locks were changed, and the property manager took possession of the

premises.

       The only issue in a forcible detainer action is the right to actual possession of the property.

See TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.3(e); Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of the City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782,

785 (Tex. 2006); see also TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. §§ 24.001–.002. A judgment of possession in

such an action determines only the right to immediate possession and is not a final determination

of whether an eviction was wrongful. Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787. When a forcible detainer

defendant fails to pay a supersedeas bond in the amount set by the county court at law, the

judgment may be enforced and a writ of possession may be executed, evicting the defendant from

the property. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007; TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.13; Marshall, 198 S.W.3d

at 786. If a forcible detainer defendant fails to supersede the judgment and loses possession of the

property, the appeal is moot unless he: (1) timely and clearly expressed his intent to appeal; and

(2) asserted “a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the

[property].” See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 786–87.

       Because the record appeared to show that appellant did not pay a supersedeas bond to stay

execution of the October 6, 2023 judgment and that the writ of possession was subsequently

executed, we ordered appellant to file a written response by January 12, 2024 explaining why this

appeal should not be dismissed as moot. Appellant did not file a response to our order.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

                                                  PER CURIAM

                                                -2-