John Deere Construction & Forestry Company v. Bradly S. Irwin
This text of John Deere Construction & Forestry Company v. Bradly S. Irwin (John Deere Construction & Forestry Company v. Bradly S. Irwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-24-00159-CV
John Deere Construction & Forestry Company, Appellant
v.
Bradly S. Irwin, Appellee
On appeal from the 82nd District Court of Falls County, Texas Judge Bryan F. Russ Jr., presiding Trial Court Cause No. CV41107
JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On August 28, 2025, this Court issued an opinion and judgment
affirming the trial court’s take nothing judgment rendered against John Deere
Construction and Forestry Company. See John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co.
v. Irwin, No. 10-24-00159-CV, 2025 WL 2473027 (Tex. App.—Waco August 28,
2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). On November 4, 2025, this Court denied John
Deere’s motion for rehearing. Thereafter, John Deere filed a suggestion of bankruptcy, notifying this Court that Appellee Bradley S. Irwin filed for
Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of Texas on November 7, 2025. Accordingly, pursuant to Texas Rule
of Appellate Procedure 8.2, the appeal was suspended from that date. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 8.2.
On March 26, 2026, John Deere filed a “Motion to Reinstate and Vacate
Judgment, Opinion, and Trial Court’s Judgment.” Attached as exhibits were
the bankruptcy court’s February 5, 2026 order of discharge and a certificate of
notice naming John Deere as a creditor whose claim was discharged. Due to
the discharge, the automatic stay was terminated. See 11 U.S.C.A. § 362(c);
TEX. R. APP. P. 8.3(a).
Ordinarily, this Court would retain plenary power for thirty days after
the November 4, 2025 order overruling John Deere’s motion for rehearing. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 19.1(b). That thirty-day time period was disrupted by the
November 7, 2025 bankruptcy filing, but begins to run anew when the appeal
is reinstated after the bankruptcy stay is lifted. Id. R. 8.2. Accordingly,
because the bankruptcy stay has been terminated, we reinstate the appeal. Id.
R. 8.3(a).
A bankruptcy court’s discharge order releases a debtor from personal
liability with respect to any discharged debt by voiding any past or future
John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co. v. Irwin Page 2 judgments on the debt and by operating as an injunction to prohibit creditors
from attempting to collect or to recover the debt. 11 U.S.C.A. § 524(a); Tenn.
Student Assistance Corp. v. Hood, 541 U.S. 440, 447 (2004). Thus, Irwin’s debt
owed to John Deere has been discharged and John Deere is prohibited from
attempting to collect the debt. Accordingly, there is no actual controversy
between Irwin and John Deere. A case becomes moot if at any stage there
ceases to be an actual controversy between the parties, and appellate courts
are prohibited from deciding moot controversies. See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic
Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). Specifically, an appeal in state
court that arises from a trial court judgment that is discharged in bankruptcy
is mooted by the bankruptcy court’s discharge order. See Chae v. Schneider,
244 S.W.3d 425, 427 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.). Any opinion issued
on the merits on appeal in a moot case would constitute an impermissible
advisory opinion. See Tex. Dep’t of Family and Protective Servs. v. Grassroots
Leadership, Inc., 717 S.W.3d 854, 862 (Tex. 2025). When a case becomes moot
on appeal, all previous orders and judgments are set aside. See Tex. Foundries,
Inc. v. Int’l Moulders & Foundry Workers’ Union, 248 S.W.2d 460, 461 (Tex.
1952).
This appeal is reinstated on the docket of this Court. Because the
controversy is moot, the trial court’s February 22, 2024 judgment and this
John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co. v. Irwin Page 3 Court’s August 28, 2025 opinion and judgment are vacated, and this case is
dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(e); City of Garland v. Louton, 691 S.W.2d
603, 605 (Tex. 1985) (per curiam) (held that when a cause becomes moot, the
appellate court must dismiss the cause not merely dismiss the appeal).
STEVE SMITH Justice
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: April 16, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Reinstated and Dismissed CV06
John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co. v. Irwin Page 4
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
John Deere Construction & Forestry Company v. Bradly S. Irwin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-deere-construction-forestry-company-v-bradly-s-irwin-texapp-2026.