Janinna Ali v. Pine Terrace
Opinion
Opinion issued August 27, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
property (“Property”) as well as damages and attorney’s fees. Appellant, proceeding pro se, then appealed the County Court’s judgment to this Court.
As a threshold matter, we must consider whether the issue of possession has become moot and thus whether we have subject-matter jurisdiction over this appeal. Strange v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr. for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortg. Loan Tr. 2004-4, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-4, No. 01-23- 00575-CV, 2024 WL 1862860, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 30, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (appellate courts “lack subject matter jurisdiction to decide a moot controversy”). After eviction, an appeal from a forcible entry and detainer action becomes moot. Id. at *2, 5 (holding after eviction, appeal was moot and dismissal warranted because appellate court lacked jurisdiction); De La Garza v. Riverstone Apartments, No. 04-06-00732-CV, 2007 WL 3270769, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 7, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same) (citing Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2006)).
The record reflects that appellant is no longer in possession of the Property.
The supplemental clerk’s record indicates that the writ of possession was executed on March 23, 2026, when appellant’s personal property was removed and the premises were “turn[ed] . . . over to [appellee].” See Holloway v. Revelstoke Venture, LLC, No. 02-23-00375-CV, 2024 WL 191221, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 18, 2024, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal as moot where appellant no
longer in possession of property and did not raise meritorious claim of right to possession).
An evicted appellant may still pursue an appeal, however, if she advances “a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property.” Strange, 2024 WL 1862860, at *4; see also Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787. Appellant has not proffered any right to possession of the Property. On August 7, 2026, we informed appellant that her appeal could be dismissed if she did not, within ten days of our notice, file a response addressing whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot. Appellant has not filed a response.
Because the issue of actual possession is moot and appellant has not raised any potentially meritorious claim, we must dismiss the appeal and vacate the trial court’s judgment as to possession. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 785 (holding that when appeal of forcible detainer action becomes moot, proper course is to dismiss appeal and vacate lower court’s judgment of possession).
Although the issue of possession is moot, the trial court also awarded appellee damages and attorney’s fees. A dispute over attorney’s fees is a live controversy that may prevent an entire case from becoming moot. See Daftary v. Prestonwood Mkt. Square, Ltd., 399 S.W.3d 708, 711–12 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, pet. denied) (holding that even though issue of possession became moot when appellant vacated
property, “entire case was not moot because [appellant’s] claims for damages and attorney’s fees continued to present live controversies”).
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c), 43.2(f). Because the issue of possession is moot, we also vacate the trial court’s judgment in part as to the issue of possession.1 We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Morgan.
1 The remainder of the judgment including the award of damages and attorney’s fees shall remain in place.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Janinna Ali v. Pine Terrace (Janinna Ali v. Pine Terrace) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.