George Keith Watson v. 17 Ramin, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 17, 2025
• Docket: 01-24-00013-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued June 17, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00013-CV ——————————— GEORGE KEITH WATSON, Appellant V. 17 RAMIN, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1213960

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After appellant George Keith Watson failed to pay rent, appellee 17 Ramin,

LLC filed suit to evict him and obtained a writ of possession. Watson appeals,

seeking to “reverse the judgment of the trial court and to regain possession of the

property.” App. Br. 5. In its reply brief, 17 Ramin asserts that the appeal is moot 2

because Watson is no longer in possession of the premises and has not

demonstrated that he has a potentially meritorious claim to a right of current, actual

possession of the premises. We agree that the appeal is moot.

An eviction action is a procedure to determine a party’s right to possession

of the premises. See TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.001–.011; TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.1; see

also TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.004 (“Eviction suits include forcible entry and detainer

and forcible detainer suits.”). The only issue in a forcible-detainer action is the

right to actual possession of the premises. Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of San

Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 785 (Tex. 2006).

A case becomes moot when there ceases to exist a justiciable controversy

between the parties and the court’s action cannot affect the parties’ rights or

interests. Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012). When a

case becomes moot, the court loses jurisdiction and cannot hear the case because

any decision would be an advisory opinion, which is prohibited by article II,

section 1 of the Texas Constitution. State ex rel. Best v. Harper, 562 S.W.3d 1, 6

(Tex. 2018). “If a case is or becomes moot, the court must vacate any order or

judgment previously issued and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.”

Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at 162.

When a tenant is no longer in possession of the property, an appeal from a

forcible detainer action becomes moot unless the tenant asserts “a potentially

2 3

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

Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787 (citing Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex.

2001)). Here, the parties’ briefs indicate that Watson is no longer in possession of

the premises. In his appellant’s brief, Watson argues that he seeks to “regain”

possession of the property. And in its reply brief, 17 Ramin asserts that Watson is

no longer in possession of the premises.

Watson raised two issues on appeal. In the first, he argues that the trial

court’s judgment was a nullity because 17 Ramin was represented by an agent, not

counsel, in the trial court. He also argues that this Court should not consider a brief

on behalf of 17 Ramin unless it is filed by an attorney. * Watson does not assert any

current right to possession of the premises. Because Watson lacks possession of the

premises and has not asserted a potentially meritorious claim that he has a current

right to possession of the property, we conclude that this forcible detainer appeal is

moot. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787.

Accordingly, we vacate the county court’s judgment and dismiss the case as

moot. See Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at 162 (“If a case is or becomes moot, the court

must vacate any order or judgment previously issued and dismiss the case for want

of jurisdiction.”); Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 788 (“One purpose of vacating the

underlying judgment if a case becomes moot during appeal is to prevent prejudice

* 17 Ramin is represented by an attorney in this Court. 3 4

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

precluded.”).

Susanna Dokupil Justice

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.