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 ———————————— NO. 01-26-00399-CV ——————————— ANNIKA ROYSTON, Appellant V. HHA-OXFORD PLACE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1272209

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

the subject property and “the merits of title shall not be adjudicated.” Wilhelm v.

Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 349 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2011, no pet.). A forcible-detainer appeal therefore 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).

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.

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Morgan.

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

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

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

Related

Marshall v. Housing Authority of San Antonio
198 S.W.3d 782 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
Wilhelm v. FEDERAL NAT. MORTG. ASS'N
349 S.W.3d 766 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011)