Court Opinion

ID: 9889279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-08 07:10:44.965907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:54.873343
License: Public Domain

Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 5, 2023

                                     In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                             NO. 14-22-00261-CV

                       RONALD WILSON, Appellant

                                       V.
             NEW RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE, LLC, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 55th District Court
                           Harris County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. 2020-10700

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This is an appeal regarding a home equity loan agreement concerning the
property located at 3913 Hickok Lane, Houston, Texas 77047 (“Property”).

      On or about March 15, 2006, Carrie and Henry Wilson III signed a
promissory note in the principal sum of $72,000 and a Deed of Trust against the
Property. On or about August 11, 2014, Carrie D. Wilson passed away and on or
about October 13, 2018, Henry Wilson III passed away. The heirs-at-law were
immediately vested with all of Carrie and Henry Wilson, III’s, rights, title, and
interest in the Property. The known heirs-at-law, Ronald Ray Wilson and Brien
Frederick Wilson, were served with process. William D. McLeod was appointed as
attorney ad litem, and the unknown heirs-at-law were served citation by
publication. After the property passed to the heirs-at-law, payments were not made
according to the terms of the loan agreement and the promissory note. Appellee
filed suit against the heirs-at-law and unknown-heirs-at-law (“the heirs”) alleging a
material breach, and accelerated the maturity of the debt owed under the loan
agreement. On March 7, 2022, the trial court granted appellee’s motion for
summary judgment. That judgment authorized appellee to foreclose on its lien
against the Property and divested the heirs’ rights to the Property. The judgment
further ordered that there was no personal liability or deficiency for the loan
agreements debts against the heirs. No attorney’s fees were awarded. Appellant,
Ronald Ray Wilson, an heir-at-law, appealed the judgment.

      Appellee moves this court to dismiss appellant’s appeal on the grounds that
the subject of the appeal has become moot. The Property was conveyed to INVUM
Three LLC., by foreclosure sale on July 5, 2023. Copies of the Substitute Trustee’s
Deed and the Affidavit of Completed Foreclosure were filed and recorded with the
Harris County Clerk. The mootness doctrine limits courts to deciding cases in
which an actual controversy exists. See F.D.I.C. v. Nueces Cnty., 886 S.W.2d 766,
767 (Tex. 1994). An issue becomes moot when (1) it appears that one seeks to
obtain a judgment on some controversy, which in reality does not exist or (2) when
one seeks a judgment on some matter which, when rendered for any reason, cannot
have any practical legal effect on a then-existing controversy. Alsobrook v.
MTGLQ Invs., LP, 657 S.W.3d 327, 330 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2021), aff'd as
modified, 656 S.W.3d 394 (Tex. 2022). A case becomes moot if there ceases to be
a justiciable controversy between the parties, such as when “the issues presented

                                         2
are no longer ‘live.’” Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex.
2012). The property which was the subject of this appeal has been sold, any
judgment issued by the court would have no effect and there is no longer a
controversy to resolve. See Moss-Schulze v. EMC Mortg. Corp., 280 S.W.3d 876,
877 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2008, pet. denied) (appeal of foreclosure order mooted
by sale of property at issue). Appellant’s case has become moot and must be
dismissed. See Id.

                                 CONCLUSION

      The Property at issue was sold at a foreclosure sale after the trial court below
rendered judgment. No controversy remains between the parties and, as such, this
appeal is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits.

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant.

                                          3