Court Opinion

ID: 9906486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-03 08:29:49.618376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:29.989254
License: Public Domain

Motion granted, Appeal dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed
November 21, 2023.

                                      In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals
                                   ____________

                              NO. 14-23-00503-CV
                                ____________

           PEDRO RAMIREZ AND ALMA RAMIREZ, Appellants

                                         V.

                           ALICIA PEREZ, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 454th District Court
                            Medina County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. 16-12-23965-CV

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Before the court is appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal for mootness.
Appellants have filed a response. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

      This is an appeal from a judgment signed March 13, 2023 adjudicating rights
in a tract of real property in Medina County, holding that appellee held title in the
property and appellants did not. Appellants timely appealed from that judgment,
but they never filed a supersedeas bond or other security to suspend the judgment.
On March 15, 2023, appellee signed a deed conveying the contested property to
her daughter, who was not a party to the trial court proceeding. On June 29, 2023,
the daughter in turn signed a deed conveying the property to a trust, which has as
co-trustees two individuals who likewise were not parties to the trial court
proceeding. Appellee’s motion contends the changes in ownership render this
appeal moot and require its dismissal.

      Texas courts of appeals are prohibited from deciding moot controversies.
See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). “A case
becomes moot if at any stage there ceases to be an actual controversy between the
parties.” Id. (citation omitted). The transfer of rights to contested property, even a
transfer precipitated by a party to an appeal, can indeed render a case moot. See
FDIC v. Nueces Cnty., 886 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex. 1994).

      The trial court’s judgment resolved which of the parties to this appeal owned
property rights in the Medina County property. But now, it appears that none of
the parties to this appeal have any legal rights to the property. We conclude this
case is moot. The El Paso 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 essentially involved a dispute over which of the two parties
owned contested property. Id. at 367. The trial court ultimately held that the
appellee was the property’s sole owner and rendered judgment accordingly. Id.
But while the appeal was pending, the appellee stated he sold the disputed property
to someone else, and the appellant did not dispute that assertion. Id. at 371. The
court of appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court’s judgment
insofar as it adjudicated ownership of the property, as any decision from the court

                                          2
of appeals could not “have a practical effect on the ownership rights of the
property.” 1 Id.

        We are persuaded by Dominguez and conclude the same result is warranted
here.    Appellants’ attempt to distinguish Dominguez from this case is not
persuasive. The judgment appellant is challenging here solely adjudicated who
owns the disputed Medina County property.                And because appellant did not
supersede the judgment while the appeal was pending, none of the parties own the
property now.      In line with the Dominguez decision, that moots this appeal.
Accordingly, appellee’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

                                      PER CURIAM
Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson.

1
  The court of appeals also concluded a challenge regarding the appellee’s counterclaim for
tortious interference with a contract was not mooted, as that challenge did not contest “relief
dependent on possession of the property.” Id. Even so, the court of appeals concluded the
challenge to the counterclaim failed on the merits. Id. at 372–73.

                                              3