Court Opinion

ID: 9951564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-18 14:11:52.415499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:40.190367
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued March 14, 2024

                                      In The

                                Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                           First District of Texas
                              ————————————
                               NO. 01-23-00776-CV
                             ———————————
                       IRIS VANNETTE BELL, Appellant
                                        V.
           LANDING AT WESTCHASE APARTMENTS, Appellee

                On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
                            Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Case No. 1210333

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      We withdraw our previous opinion and judgment of March 5, 2024, and issue

the following opinion in its stead.
      In this forcible-detainer action, appellant Iris Vannette Bell appeals from the

county court’s judgment granting possession of certain real property to appellee,

Landing at Westchase Apartments. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

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

the subject property; “the merits of title shall not be adjudicated.” TEX. R. CIV. P.

510.3(e); see Wilhelm v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 349 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). Therefore, 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 v.

Hous. Auth. of the City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 786–87 (Tex. 2006); see

Wilhelm, 349 S.W.3d at 768; Gallien v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 01-07-

00075-CV, 2008 WL 4670465, at *2–4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 23,

2008, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (mem. op.).

      The record reflects that appellant did not supersede the judgment and that

appellant no longer has possession of the property at issue in the underlying forcible

detainer action. On January 23, 2024, this Court issued a letter informing appellant

that the record indicated that the appeal is moot because appellee now has possession

of the subject property. We requested that appellant file a response to whether the

                                          2
appeal was moot. Appellant did not respond, and therefore, has failed to assert a

potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property.

See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787; Wilhelm, 349 S.W.3d at 768; Soza v. Fed. Home

Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 01-11-00568-CV, 2013 WL 3148616, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] June 18, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that appellant who

failed to respond to appellee’s motion to dismiss had failed to assert potentially

meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession).

      Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case as

moot. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 785, 787, 790 (when case becomes moot on

appeal, appellate court must set aside trial court judgment and dismiss case);

Wilhelm, 349 S.W.3d at 769; Bey v. ASD Fin., Inc., No. 05-14-00534-CV, 2014 WL

4180933, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 11, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing

appeal of forcible detainer action as moot because appellant no longer possessed

property at issue); TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). We dismiss all other pending motions

as moot.

                                  PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.

                                          3