Court Opinion

ID: 9953934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-24 07:18:41.774322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:56.913650
License: Public Domain

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 19, 2024

                                          In The

                       Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                  NO. 14-23-00649-CV

                            MARK SAPAUGH, Appellant

                                             V.
           MORTGAGE ASSESTS MANAGEMENT LLC, Appellee

              On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2
                            Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. 1197744

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

       The underlying December 12, 2022 justice-court judgment in this
forcible-detainer case dismissed defendant Loyle Sapaugh, deceased, and rendered
judgment of possession for plaintiff Mortgage Assests Management LLC against
defendant Marla Kay Sapaugh. Marla Kay Sapaugh did not appear, but her son,
who was not a named party, did appear. Marla Kay Sapaugh appealed.1

       1
        A county court has appellate jurisdiction in civil cases over which the justice courts
have original jurisdiction, including forcible entry and detainer suits. See Tex. Gov’t Code
       In the de novo case in county civil court at law, plaintiff dismissed its claims
against Loyle, and the county civil court at law signed a March 10, 2023 final
judgment of possession for plaintiff against defendant, whose name was misspelled
“Maria Kay Sapaugh.”2 No notice of appeal was filed. The county civil court at
law signed an August 18, 2023 judgment nunc pro tunc correcting the spelling of
defendant’s name, rendering possession for plaintiff against defendant “Marla Kay
Sapaugh.” Mark Sapaugh filed an August 23, 2023 notice of appeal, suggesting
that Marla Sapaugh died on May 6, 2023.

       No timely notice of appeal regarding the merits of the underlying March 10,
2023 judgment of possession appears to have been filed, and no one argues that the
subsequent judgment nunc pro tunc extended the appellate timetables.
Accordingly, this court issued notice on February 21, 2024 that the appeal would
be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction unless any party filed a
response within 10 days showing meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal.
No response was filed. We dismiss the appeal for want of subject-matter
jurisdiction.

                                         PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Spain.

§§ 26.042(e), 27.031(a)(2). But in those counties having statutory county courts, the statutory
county court has jurisdiction over all causes and proceedings, civil and criminal, original and
appellate, prescribed by law for county courts. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 25.0003(a). Harris County
has county civil courts at law. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 25.1031(a). Thus, in Harris County, the
county civil court at law has jurisdiction over appeals from justice court. See Tex. R. Civ. P.
509.8 (appeal from justice court).
       2
           There is no dispute that defendant was served and was a party to the underlying case.

                                                  2