Evelyn Johnson v. Medical Center Apts.

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: June 9, 2026
• Docket: 01-26-00259-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued June 9, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-26-00259-CV ——————————— EVELYN JOHNSON, Appellant V. MEDICAL CENTER APARTMENTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1270549

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment of possession in a forcible detainer case.

Judgment was signed on March 11, 2026, and the writ of possession issued the same

date. On March 9, 2026, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. 2

On April 15, 2026, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, claiming

appellant was no longer in possession of the premises and the appeal was therefore

moot. Appellant has not responded to this motion. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

In a forcible detainer action, the right to actual possession of the property is

the only issue. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.3(l); Wilhelm v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 349

S.W.3d 766, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). An appeal from

a forcible detainer case becomes moot when an appellant no longer has possession

of the subject property unless the appellant holds and asserts “a potentially

meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession” of the property. Marshall

v. Hous. Auth. of the City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 786–87 (Tex. 2006). If

the appeal is moot, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See Guillen v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 494

S.W.3d 861, 864 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.).

Appellee states in its motion to dismiss that appellant is no longer in

possession of the property. In its certificate of conference, appellee’s counsel notes

that he spoke with appellant’s grandson, who acknowledged that appellant no longer

lived in the subject property. But the certificate contains no indication whether she

agreed or was opposed to the motion to dismiss. According to appellee, appellant’s

grandson stated he would talk to his grandmother and call back concerning whether

she agreed or opposed the motion, but no return call occurred. Appellant filed no

response to the motion. These communications indicate that appellant is no longer

2 3

in possession of the property and, by failing to file a response, appellant has not

raised a potentially meritorious claim of a right to current, actual possession.

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and 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 lacks jurisdiction and must set

aside trial court judgment and dismiss case); TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Any pending

motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Gunn, Caughey, and Morgan.