Court Opinion

ID: 4302203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-08-09 14:19:15.098558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:03:56.272464
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-17-00496-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

SANDRA MARIBEL ARROYO,                                                     Appellant,

                                           v.

CRISTO REY GARZA,                                   Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

          On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
 Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
           Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

      By one issue, appellant Sandra Maribel Arroyo asserts that “the trial court lacked

subject matter jurisdiction” over this forcible-detainer action “because the question of

ownership to the property remains unresolved, and the trial court is legally unauthorized

to resolve land title disputes.” Appellee Cristo Rey Garza has filed a motion to dismiss

this appeal on grounds that the issue presented here has become moot. Garza asserts
that any questions pertaining to ownership of this property has been resolved in his favor.

See Arroyo v. Garza, No. 13-16-00633-CV, 2018 WL 3583789, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi July 26, 2018, no pet. h.) (mem. op.); Arroyo v. Garza, No.13-15-00211-CV, 2015
WL 9487259, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec. 29, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.).

       Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding a moot controversy.         See Nat’l

Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999); City of Farmers Branch

v. Ramos, 235 S.W.3d 462, 469 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) (noting that a court

may only decide issues presenting “a live controversy at the time of the decision”). If a

controversy ceases to exist or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome

at any stage, the case becomes moot. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640,

642 (Tex. 2005); Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). “[A] suit can

become moot at any time, including on appeal, and . . . courts have an obligation to take

into account intervening events that may render a lawsuit moot.”              Heckman v.

Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 166–67 (Tex. 2012). If a proceeding becomes

moot, the court must dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction. See id.

       The Court, having examined and fully considered appellant’s brief, the documents

on file, and appellee’s motion to dismiss, is of the opinion that this appeal has been

rendered moot. Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal as

moot. All pending motions, if any, are likewise dismissed as moot.

                                                        /s/ Rogelio Valdez
                                                        ROGELIO VALDEZ
                                                        Chief Justice
Delivered and filed the
9th day of August, 2018.

                                             2