Court Opinion

ID: 9363670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 14:09:07.122888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:33.411723
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                       San Antonio, Texas
                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                           No. 04-22-00574-CV

                                           Jonathan CASTRO,
                                                Appellant

                                                     v.

                                            Theretha SMITH,
                                                Appellee

                       From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2022CV02911
                            Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 11, 2023

DISMISSED AS MOOT

           On October 31, 2022, the clerk’s record was filed in this appeal. The record reflects that in

this forcible detainer action, Appellant Jonathan Castro appeals from the county court’s final

judgment granting possession of certain real property to Appellee Theretha Smith.

           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., 198 S.W.3d 782, 785 (Tex. 2006).

“Judgment of possession in a forcible detainer action is not intended to be a final determination of
                                                                                      04-22-00574-CV

whether the eviction is wrongful; rather, it is a determination of the right to immediate possession.”

Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787.

       Here, the county court’s final judgment grants only possession and does not grant past rent

or attorney’s fees to Smith. Further, the clerk’s record reflects that the supersedeas bond was set

at $20,000. There is no indication in the record that Appellant Castro superseded the judgment by

posting bond. Further, on September 27, 2022, Appellant Castro informed this court by telephone

of his updated permanent address, which is a different address from the property at issue. It

therefore appears that Appellant Castro did not supersede the judgment and may no longer be in

possession of the property at issue.

       Although the failure to supersede a forcible-detainer judgment does not divest an appellant

of the right to appeal, an appeal from a forcible-detainer action becomes moot if the appellant is

no longer in possession of the property, unless the appellant holds and asserts “a potentially

meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession” of the property. Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at

787. Accordingly, on November 15, 2022, we ordered Appellant Castro to file a written response

by November 30, 2022, explaining whether he has a potentially meritorious claim of right to current,

actual possession of the property. See id. We further explained that if Appellant Castro failed to

respond within the time provided, this appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Appellant Castro has failed to respond. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as moot. See Marshall,

198 S.W.3d at 787; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

                                                  PER CURIAM

                                                 -2-