Michelle Rowland v. Swaying Oaks Apartments

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 9, 2023
• Docket: 04-23-00315-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-23-00315-CV

Michelle ROWLAND, Appellant

v.

SWAYING OAKS APARTMENTS, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022CV02142 Honorable Cesar Garcia, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 9, 2023

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant attempts to appeal the trial court’s judgment awarding possession of real

property to Swaying Oaks Apartments. The trial court signed the judgment on March 2, 2023.

The only issue in a forcible detainer action is the right to actual possession of the property.

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). A judgment of possession in such an action determines only the right to immediate

possession and is not a final determination of whether an eviction is wrongful. Marshall,

198 S.W.3d at 787. When a forcible detainer defendant fails to file a supersedeas bond in the 04-23-00315-CV

amount set by the county court, the judgment may be enforced and a writ of possession may be

executed, evicting the defendant from the property. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007; TEX. R.

CIV. P. 510.13; Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 786. If a forcible detainer defendant fails to supersede

the judgment and loses possession of the property, the appeal is moot unless the defendant:

(1) timely and clearly expressed his or her intent to appeal; and (2) asserted “a potentially

meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the [property].” Marshall, 198 S.W.3d

at 787.

A review of the clerk’s record indicates appellant did not file a supersedeas bond. The

clerk’s record also shows a writ of possession was issued by the county clerk and the writ was

executed on May 4, 2023. Therefore, on June 13, 2023, we ordered appellant to file a written

response on or before June 28, 2023, explaining why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction. To date, appellant has not responded to our order. Accordingly, we dismiss this

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c).

-2-