Court Opinion

ID: 9958849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 06:13:37.442312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:51.644968
License: Public Domain

JUDGMENT VACATED and CASE DISMISSED and Opinion Filed April 3,
2024

                                   S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00940-CV

     IKECHUKWU H. OKORIE AND VIVIAN N. OKORIE, Appellants
                           V.
             MDREZAUL CHOWDHURY, Appellee

                On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
                            Collin County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. 003-02259-2023

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
        Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein
                         Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
      This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment and order of possession in a

forcible detainer lawsuit. Asserting that the appeal is moot because appellants

have vacated the property, appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

      The only issue in a forcible detainer suit is the right to immediate possession

of the premises. See Olley v. HVM, L.L.C., 449 S.W.3d 572, 575 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). Unless an appellant has a potentially

meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession, the issue of possession and

the case become moot when the appellant is no longer in possession of the
premises. See Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782,

787, 790 (Tex. 2006). A judgment of possession in such an action is not a final

determination as to whether the eviction is wrongful, but merely a determination of

the right to immediate possession. See id at 787. When a party is no longer in

possession of the property and cannot demonstrate a meritorious claim of right to

current, actual possession, the case is moot and the reviewing court must vacate the

judgment and dismiss the case. See id. at 788.

      The record before the Court shows that appellants’ lease for the property has

expired. In their response to appellee’s motion, appellants assert the appeal is not

moot because we have not considered their claim that appellee breached the

contract terms. However, we do not address the merits where, as here, appellants

have not demonstrated that they have a meritorious claim of right to current, actual

possession. See id at 787.

      Appellants also assert the appeal is not moot because the collateral

consequences exception to the mootness doctrine applies. In order to invoke the

collateral consequences exception, appellants must show both that a concrete

disadvantage resulted from the judgment and that the disadvantage will persist

even if the judgment is vacated and the case dismissed as moot. See id. at 789.

Appellants assert they “suffered adverse consequences as a result of [appellee’s]

conduct” because they incurred repair and maintenance costs of the premises. The

trial court’s judgment addressed only possession of the property. Because the

                                        –2–
judgment did not address any alleged repair-related damages, any such

disadvantage did not result from the judgment. See id. (concrete disadvantage

must result from judgment).          Accordingly, we conclude the collateral

consequences exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply.

      Because appellants have not demonstrated the appeal is not moot, we grant

appellee’s motion to the extent that we vacate the trial court’s September 15, 2023

judgment and dismiss the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Marshall, 198 S.W.3d

at 790.

                                             /Robert D. Burns, III/
                                             ROBERT D. BURNS, III
230940F.P05                                  CHIEF JUSTICE

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

IKECHUKWU H. OKORIE AND                      On Appeal from the County Court at
VIVIAN N. OKORIE, Appellants                 Law No. 3, Collin County, Texas
                                             Trial Court Cause No. 003-02259-
No. 05-23-00940-CV         V.                2023.
                                             Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
MDREZAUL CHOWDHURY,                          Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein
Appellee                                     participating.

      In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s
September 15, 2023 judgment and order of possession is VACATED and this case
is DISMISSED.

       It is ORDERED that appellee MDREZAUL CHOWDHURY recover his
costs of this appeal from appellants IKECHUKWU H. OKORIE and VIVIAN N.
OKORIE and the cash deposit. After all of the costs have been paid, the trial court
clerk is ORDERED to release the balance, if any, of the cash deposit to appellants.

Judgment entered April 3, 2024

                                       –4–