Court Opinion

ID: 9895631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 07:09:52.210223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:50.079306
License: Public Domain

Vacate and Affirm and Opinion Filed November 2, 2023

                                       In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-22-01368-CV

                       PAMELA ANDERSON, Appellant
                                   V.
                      PIONEER 1 REALTY INC., Appellee

                On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-05881-E

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Nowell
                            Opinion by Justice Nowell
      This is an appeal from a final order in a forcible detainer lawsuit awarding

possession of the subject property to appellee, Pioneer 1 Realty Inc. Before the Court

is appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. Appellee recites in the motion

that appellant, Pamela Anderson, vacated the subject premises on August 20, 2023,

and relinquished possession to appellee. Appellant, who is proceeding pro se, did

not respond to appellee’s motion.
      The county court at law’s order in this case states the eviction or forcible

detainer lawsuit against appellant is granted and orders appellee take possession of

the premises. The order also awards attorney’s fees of $1,250 to appellee.

      Appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s order awarding possession of the

premises to appellee is moot because appellant relinquished possession of the

premises to appellee, and she presents no potentially meritorious claim of right to

current, actual possession of the subject premises. See, e.g., Marshall v. Housing

Auth. of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 787-88 (Tex. 2006); Pittman v. JRMV Prop.

Investments, LLC, No. 05-22-01192-CV, 2022 WL 17817961, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Dec. 20, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). Because the possession issue is moot, we

must vacate the trial court’s order awarding possession. See Brown v. Hawkins, No.

05-16-01427-CV, 2018 WL 1312467, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 14, 2018, no

pet.) (mem. op.); see also Bowman v. KWA202, LLC, No. 02-22-00216-CV, 2023

WL 2607754, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 23, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.).

      Although the issue of possession is moot, issues independent of possession,

such as attorney’s fees, remain reviewable on appeal. See Espinoza v. Lopez, 468

S.W.3d 692, 698 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.); see also Heimlich

v. Cook, No. 14-22-00358-CV, 2023 WL 3596264, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] May 23, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.,

166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding)). However, appellant did not

                                        –2–
challenge the award of attorney’s fees or any other issue independent of possession

on appeal.

      Accordingly, we vacate the county court’s order dated December 2, 2022, as

to the right of immediate possession. In all other respects, we affirm the county

court’s order dated December 2, 2022.

                                          /Erin A. Nowell//
221368f.p05                               ERIN A. NOWELL
                                          JUSTICE

                                        –3–
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                JUDGMENT

PAMELA ANDERSON, Appellant                  On Appeal from the County Court at
                                            Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-01368-CV         V.               Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-05881-
                                            E.
PIONEER 1 REALTY INC.,                      Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
Appellee                                    Justices Molberg and Pedersen, III
                                            participating.

      In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we VACATE the
county court’s order dated December 2, 2022 as to the right of immediate
possession. In all other respects, we AFFIRM the county court’s order dated
December 2, 2022.

      It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 2nd day of November, 2023.

                                      –4–