Crystal Wriston and All Other Occupants v. Housing Authority of the City of San Antonio, Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 3, 2024
• Docket: 04-24-00240-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-24-00240-CV

Crystal WRISTON, Appellant

v.

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023CV07119 Honorable Cesar Garcia, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 3, 2024

VACATED AND CASE DISMISSED

Appellant Crystal Wriston seeks to appeal the trial court’s March 1, 2024 judgment of

eviction in a forcible detainer action. The clerk’s record shows appellant did not pay a supersedeas

bond to stay execution of the judgment, and the county court at law subsequently issued a writ of

possession to enforce the judgment. The writ of possession was executed on April 4, 2024, and

the officer’s return on the executed writ of possession states possession of the premises was

delivered to appellee. 04-24-00240-CV

We have a duty to examine our own jurisdiction. Guillen v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 494 S.W.3d

861, 865 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.). In general, we lack jurisdiction to

decide moot appeals. Briones v. Brazos Bend Villa Apts., 438 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). The only issue in a forcible detainer action is the right to

actual possession of the property. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.3(e); Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of the City

of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 785 (Tex. 2006); see also TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 24.001–.002. An

appeal of a judgment of possession in a forcible detainer action becomes moot if the judgment is

not timely superseded, the appellant is no longer in possession, and the appellant does not have a

potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at

786–87.

Here, the record shows appellant did not pay a supersedeas bond to stay execution of the

March 1, 2024 judgment, and the writ of possession was subsequently executed. We therefore

issued a show cause order, noting this appeal appeared moot. See id. In our order, we directed

appellant to file a response by May 15, 2024, explaining: (1) whether she has a potentially

meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property and (2) why this appeal

should not be dismissed as moot. We cautioned appellant failure to timely respond and show how

this court has jurisdiction would result in a dismissal of this appeal. Appellant did not file a

response. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss this case as moot. See

id. at 788 (“One purpose of vacating the underlying judgment if a case becomes moot during appeal

is to prevent prejudice to the rights of the parties when appellate review of a judgment on its merits

is precluded.”).

-2-