Ann Banda, Amin Devon Jones, and Shylonda Sampson v. Bullum Civic LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 19, 2025
• Docket: 01-25-00486-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued August 19, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00486-CV ——————————— ANN BANDA, AMIN DEVON JONES, AND SHYLONDA SAMPSON, Appellants V. BULLUM CIVILE, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1251678

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this forcible-detainer action, appellants Ann Banda, Amin Devon Jones,

and Shylonda Sampson appeal from the county court’s judgment granting possession

of certain real property to appellee, Bullum Civile LLC. We dismiss the appeal as

moot. The only issue in a forcible-detainer action is the right to actual possession of

the subject property; “the merits of title shall not be adjudicated.” TEX. R. CIV. P.

510.3(e); see Wilhelm v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 349 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). Therefore, although the failure to supersede a

forcible-detainer judgment does not divest an appellant of the right to appeal, 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 Auth. of the City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 786–87 (Tex. 2006); see

Wilhelm, 349 S.W.3d at 768; 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.).

The record reflects that appellants did not supersede the judgment and that

appellants no longer have possession of the property at issue in the underlying

forcible detainer action. On July 29, 2025, this Court issued a letter informing

appellants that the record indicated that the appeal is moot because appellee now has

possession of the subject property. We requested that appellants file a response to

whether the appeal was moot. Appellants did not respond, and therefore, have 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.

2 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. 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 vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case as

moot. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 785, 787, 790 (when case becomes moot on

appeal, appellate court must set aside trial court judgment and dismiss case);

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 Caughey and Johnson.