Court Opinion

ID: 9404794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-26 07:09:33.690779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:17.310845
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued June 20, 2023

                                     In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                    For The

                          First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                              NO. 01-22-00581-CV
                           ———————————
                       STEPHEN MANLEY, Appellant
                                        V.
                    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee

            On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1
                          Harris County, Texas
                      Trial Court Case No. 1183309

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In this forcible-detainer action, appellant, Stephen Manley, appeals from the

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

Bank of America, N.A. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
        The only issue in a forcible-detainer action is the right to actual possession of

the subject property and the merits of any title dispute shall not be adjudicated. See

Tellez v. Rodriguez, 612 S.W.3d 707, 709 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020,

no pet.) (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.3(e)). 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. Housing Authority of the City of San

Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 786–87 (Tex. 2006); see Wilhelm v. Fed. Nat. Mortg.

Ass’n, 349 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.);

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.).

        On May 16, 2023, appellee filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the appeal

is moot because the writ of possession was executed, and appellant no longer has

possession of the property. Appellant did not respond to the motion to dismiss, 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.

                                            2
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 dismiss the appeal as moot. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at

785, 787, 790; 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(c). We dismiss all other

pending motions as moot.

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

                                           3