Court Opinion

ID: 4080255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-10-06 14:12:44.667508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:44:51.671618
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-16-000199-CV

                           COURT OF APPEALS

                 THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

DRUDONIA MARLENE SMITH,                                                   Appellant,

                                          v.

HARVEY SMITH, AS INDEPENDENT
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID LEE SMITH,          Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

          On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
                   of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
               Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria
                    Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellant Drudonia Marlene Smith appeals a temporary injunction order issued in

trial court cause no. 2016-CCV-60346-3. The injunction prohibited her from disposing of

certain funds that once belonged to her late ex-husband before the resolution of a suit
against her by appellee Harvey Smith, the executor of her ex-husband’s estate.

Appellee has now filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because the

case proceeded to trial and the court has rendered a final judgment.

       The mootness doctrine implicates subject matter jurisdiction. See Trulock v. City

of Duncanville, 277 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.); City of

Shoreacres v. Tex. Comm’n of Envtl. Quality, 166 S.W.3d 825, 830 (Tex. App.—Austin

2005, no pet.). Under this doctrine, 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.

       In the underlying case, the trial court has rendered a final judgment on the merits.

A final decision on the merits of a case renders moot an appeal of the trial court’s decision

to grant or refuse a temporary injunction. See Isuani v. Manske-Sheffield Radiology

Group, P.A., 802 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991) (“If, while on the appeal of the granting or

denying of the temporary injunction, the trial court renders final judgment, the case on

appeal becomes moot.”); In re Estate of Sheshtawy, 478 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.). We therefore agree that this appeal has become

                                             2
moot.

        We GRANT appellee’s motion and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                                          PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
6th day of October, 2016.

                                          3