Clara Parrish v. U.S. Bank & Trust

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 16, 2024
• Docket: 05-24-00347-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 16, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00347-CV

CLARA PARRISH, Appellant V. U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-05201-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Smith This appeal in a forcible detainer suit follows the trial court’s final judgment

awarding possession of certain property, but no damages, to appellee. Since the

filing of the appeal, appellant has vacated the property, and appellee now moves to

dismiss the appeal as moot. See Olley v. HVM, L.L.C., 449 S.W.3d 573, 575 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (appellate courts lack jurisdiction

over moot controversies).

It is well-settled that the only issue in a forcible detainer suit is the right to

actual possession of the premises. See Marshall v. Housing Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 785 (Tex. 2006). As such, when the tenant vacates the

property, the issue of possession becomes moot unless the tenant asserts a potentially

meritorious claim for right to current, actual possession of the property. See id. at

787 (citing Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001)) (case becomes moot

if controversy ceases to exist between parties). When the tenant vacates the property

while the suit is on appeal and the judgment awards no damages, the entire case, and

not just the issue of possession or appeal, becomes moot and the judgment must be

vacated. See id. at 785.

More than ten days have passed since appellee moved to dismiss the appeal,

and appellant has not filed a response or otherwise disputed appellee’s contentions.

Accordingly, with nothing before us showing appellant has a right to actual

possession of the property, we grant appellee’s motion to the extent we vacate the

judgment of possession and dismiss the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(e); Marshall,

198 S.W.3d at 785.

/Craig Smith/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE

240347F.P05

–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

CLARA PARRISH, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-24-00347-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-05201- A. U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS Opinion delivered by Justice Smith, TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER Justices Pedersen, III and Garcia PARTICIPATION TRUST, Appellee participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we VACATE the trial court’s final judgment of possession and DISMISS the case.

Judgment entered October 16, 2024

–3–