Crystal Martin v. Woodlake Oaks Apartments

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 15, 2025
• Docket: 01-24-00626-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued April 15, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00626-CV ——————————— CRYSTAL MARTIN, Appellant V. WOODLAKE OAKS APARTMENTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1231165

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this forcible-detainer action, appellant Crystal Martin appeals from the

county court’s judgment granting possession of certain real property to appellee,

Woodlake Oaks Apartments. 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 Authority 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 appellant did not supersede the judgment and that

appellant no longer has possession of the property at issue in the underlying forcible

detainer action. On March 18, 2025, this Court issued a letter informing appellant

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

of the subject property. We requested that appellant file a response to whether the

appeal was moot. Appellant did not respond, and therefore, has 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. Fed. Home

2 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 Gunn and Guiney.