Russell Hernandez v. Miguel Espinoza
This text of Russell Hernandez v. Miguel Espinoza (Russell Hernandez v. Miguel Espinoza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-26-00060-CV
Russell HERNANDEZ, Appellant
v.
Miguel ESPINOZA, Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2025CV10617 Honorable Cesar Garcia, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 24, 2026
VACATED AND DISMISSED
In this forcible detainer case, appellant appeals the trial court’s judgment, which awarded
possession of the real property to appellee. Included in the clerk’s record on appeal is the trial
court’s judgment and a writ of possession. The record does not show that appellant filed a
supersedeas bond to suspend the judgment. The record includes a sheriff’s return, indicating the
writ of possession has been executed and possession delivered to appellee. 04-26-00060-CV
We have a duty to examine our own jurisdiction. Guillen v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 494 S.W.3d
861, 865 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.). We lack jurisdiction to decide moot
appeals. Briones v. Brazos Bend Villa Apts., 438 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2014, no pet.). A case becomes moot if, at any stage of the proceedings, a controversy ceases
to exist between the parties. See Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782,
787 (Tex. 2006). The only issue in a forcible detainer action is the right to actual possession of the
property. See id. at 785; TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.3(e); see also TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 24.001–.002.
“When a tenant is no longer in possession of the property and has not superseded the judgment of
possession, [his] appeal is moot unless: (1) []he timely and clearly expressed an intent to exercise
the right of appeal, and (2) appellate relief is not futile.” Stewart v. Fiesta City Realtors, No. 04-
17-00839-CV, 2018 WL 4760151, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 3, 2018, no pet.) (mem.
op.). “Appellate relief is not futile if the tenant holds and asserts ‘a potentially meritorious claim
of right to current, actual possession’ of the property.” Id. (quoting Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787)
(emphasis in original).
Because the record shows appellant did not pay a supersedeas bond to stay execution of
the judgment and the writ of possession was subsequently executed, this appeal may be moot. See
Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787. We therefore ordered appellant to show cause in writing no later
than May 5, 2026, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f), 44.3.
Appellant did not file a response. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and
dismiss the case as moot. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 786–87.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Russell Hernandez v. Miguel Espinoza, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-hernandez-v-miguel-espinoza-txctapp4-2026.