Steven J. Stringfellow v. Hamza Khan

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00385-CV

__________________

STEVEN J. STRINGFELLOW, Appellant V.

HAMZA KHAN, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6 Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 24-34173

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Steven J. Stringfellow appeals a judgment in an eviction case. The justice court rendered judgment for the landlord, Hamza Khan, and Stringfellow appealed but he failed to appear for the trial de novo in the county court at law. The landlord moved for a non-suit because Stringfellow was no longer in possession of the leased premises on the date of the trial. The trial court dismissed the case. In his appeal, Stringfellow argues possession of the leased premises should be returned to him. We

2

conclude the eviction suit was moot, that the trial court did not err by dismissing the entire case, and the appeal is moot.

Background

Khan, a self-represented party, filed a suit to evict Stringfellow for nonpayment of rent and for holding over after the lease terminated. In a written answer, Stringfellow asserted failure to remedy or repair as a defense to eviction. On September 9, 2024, Stringfellow filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond. Stringfellow failed to appear for the trial the following day. On September 10, the justice court awarded possession of the premises to Khan, awarded back rent in the amount of $2,700.00, set the amount of the appeal bond at $1,350.00, and found the monthly rental amount due is $675.00.

On September 17, Stringfellow signed a notice in which he acknowledged that he must file one month’s rent on or before September 24, 2024, at 4:30 p.m., and that “if I fail to deposit the rent into the registry of the court a Writ of Possession may be issued.” The record does not show that Stringfellow deposited one month’s rent into the registry of the court. No writ of possession is contained in the documents forwarded from the justice court to the county court at law.

On October 2, the county clerk issued a notice that the case has been appealed to the County Court at Law Number Six and docketed as Cause Number 24-34173.

3

On October 4, the trial court set the case for trial on October 23, 2024, at 1:30 p.m.

On October 4, Stringfellow filed an “Application for Writ of Retrieval.”

Stringfellow contended the amount of rent set by the justice court was unfair because Stringfellow has given Khan a notice to repair. On the same day, Stringfellow filed an answer in which he asserted the justice court should have set rent on appeal at $0 due to Khan’s noncompliance with the repair and remedy statute and alleged the execution of the writ of possession had been unlawful. Stringfellow also filed a motion for summary judgment with no evidence attached, a request for a jury trial, and a motion to appear remotely.

On October 7, Stringfellow filed notice of a change of his address. He also filed a motion to dismiss.

On October 7, the court coordinator emailed a copy of the docket control order to the parties and mailed confirmations to both Stringfellow’s old and his new address.

On October 8, the trial court granted Stringfellow’s motion to appear remotely. The order stated that the court coordinator would email a Zoom link 30 minutes before the trial and warned Stringfellow that his “failure to appear either via Zoom or in person for final Bench Trial may result in Plaintiff taking a default judgment against Defendant.”

4

On October 8, Stringfellow filed another motion for summary judgment, and a motion for change of venue.

On October 9, Stringfellow filed a “Plea to the Caveat of Jurisdiction” in which he complains about constables and landlords and asks the trial court to dismiss the case.

On October 22, Stringfellow filed a motion to stay writ of possession in which Stringfellow states, “Due to the fact that the appeal for this case was perfected and the JP4 court and constables executed a writ of possession unlawfully then considering, applying for a writ of possession for the rental unit in question would perhaps seem as honoring such undue process.” On that day Stringfellow also filed a motion for continuance, a plea to the jurisdiction, and a “Motion for Jury Challenge” in which Stringfellow asked the judge to submit the jury to post-verdict polygraph tests and a petition for a mandatory injunction for said polygraph tests. He also filed a notice of hearing by submission.

On October 23, the court coordinator emailed a link for a Zoom meeting for the October 23, 2024 trial with an instruction to remain in the Zoom meeting room until his case is called.

Stringfellow did not appear for trial, either in person or by Zoom, and the trial court found him in default. The trial court asked Khan if he had his property back. Khan replied that he has had the property for about a month, “When I filed the first

5

eviction.” The trial court asked Khan if he was seeking back rent, to which he replied, “No, ma’am, I don’t want to proceed on the petition.” The trial court asked, “So what you are telling me is you want to abandon your petition and nonsuit your claims on the record, correct?” Khan replied, “Right. Yes.”

On October 23, the trial court signed an Order of Nonsuit. The order recites that “the Defendant failed to appear and wholly made default[]” and “Plaintiff announced his desire to nonsuit his request for affirmative relief[]” that “this case is dismissed without prejudice[]” and “All relief not expressly granted herein is denied.”

On October 28, Stringfellow filed an “Application for Writ of Possession (and Cancellation of Original Writ).” The record does not show that Stringfellow presented the application to the trial court or that the trial court ruled on the application.

On October 28, Stringfellow filed a notice of appeal.

Issues

In Appellant’s Brief, Stringfellow presents the following issues:

4.1. Eviction case 4EV97401 was appealed as perfected to Montgomery County Court 6 where the case was dismissed by the Appellee. The order of nonsuit issued by the court denied all relief to the Appellee.

4.2. Montgomery County Precinct 4 had executed a writ of possession against the law, considering that caveat for recession was passed by the Appellee.

6

4.3. County Court 6 failed to issue an order canceling the JP4 court’s writ and/or did not order for a new writ of possession officially returning the premises in question to the Appellant when such was requested.

4.4. At this point in cause, possession of the property including the belongings which were in the residence must be ordered returned to the Appellant under processes due.

Analysis

A case becomes moot if, during any stage of the proceedings, a controversy ceases to exist between the parties. Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). In an eviction case, the issue of possession becomes moot when the appellant ceases to have actual possession of the property, unless the appellant holds and asserts a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the premises. Marshall v. Housing Auth. of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 787–88 (Tex. 2006). Involuntarily surrendering possession of the property does not moot the issue of possession if the tenant “clearly expresses an intent to exercise the right of appeal and if appellate relief is not futile.” Id.

Stringfellow argues the writ of possession was executed “against the law[]”

and he argues the trial court erred by not causing a writ of possession to issue returning possession of the property to him. There is, however, no evidence in the record that the writ of possession should not have been executed. Filing a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond sufficed to perfect

7

an appeal, but not to stay execution on the writ of possession. See Act of May 29, 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1027, § 3, 2015 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 1027 (amended 2025) (for current version see Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 24.0053). 1 Stringfellow did not voluntarily surrender possession of the leased premises, but he was a holdover tenant on an oral month-to-month lease. Stringfellow asserted defenses in the county court at law but he did not appear at the trial to defend his right to possession or show that the writ of possession issued in violation of Property Code section 24.0053. Id. We conclude Stringfellow has not shown he has a potentially meritorious claim of right of current, actual possession of the premises. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787.

Khan had possession of the premises on the day of the trial. Because Khan was already in possession of the property and Stringfellow failed to establish his defenses at trial, the entire cause became moot when Khan non-suited his action for

1 At the time of trial, Property Code section 24.0053(a-3) stated:

If a tenant files an appeal bond to appeal an eviction for nonpayment of rent, the tenant must, not later than the fifth day after the date the tenant filed the appeal bond, pay into the justice court registry the amount of rent to be paid in one rental pay period as determined by the court under Subsection (a). If the tenant fails to timely pay that amount into the justice court registry and the transcript has not yet been transmitted to the county court, the plaintiff may request a writ of possession. On request and payment of the applicable fee, the justice court shall issue the writ of possession immediately and without a hearing. Regardless of whether a writ of possession is issued, the justice court shall transmit the transcript and appeal documents to the county court for trial de novo on issues relating to possession, rent, or attorney’s fees.

8

rent. See Anderson v. Shiloh Village Apts., No. 05-22-00830-CV, 2023 WL 2494448, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 14, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal from order granting notice of non-suit after plaintiff obtained possession of the property through a writ of possession).

Conclusion

Generally, dismissal of the entire case is the appropriate action when an appeal is moot. Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 790. In this case, however, the trial court already dismissed the entire case. Courts lack jurisdiction to decide a moot controversy. Guardianship of Fairley, 650 S.W.3d 372, 379 (Tex. 2022). Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

KENT CHAMBERS

Justice

Submitted on June 29, 2026 Opinion Delivered August 27, 2026

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.