Annika Royston v. HHA- Oxford Place

Tex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Houston)

Annika Royston v. HHA- Oxford Place

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)·Decided July 14, 2026·No. 01-26-00399-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued July 14, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

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).

The record contains an executed and returned writ of possession indicating that appellants no longer possess the disputed property. 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 Soza v. 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.).

Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case as moot. See 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(a). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Morgan.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion issued July 14, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

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).

The record contains an executed and returned writ of possession indicating that appellants no longer possess the disputed property. 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 Soza v. 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.).

Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case as moot. See 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(a). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Morgan.

Annika Royston v. HHA- Oxford Place, (Tex. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Annika Royston v. HHA- Oxford Place (Annika Royston v. HHA- Oxford Place) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related