Willis Alan Hizar v. 777 ER, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 20, 2025
Docket02-24-00549-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Willis Alan Hizar v. 777 ER, LLC (Willis Alan Hizar v. 777 ER, LLC) 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.

Bluebook
Willis Alan Hizar v. 777 ER, LLC, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-24-00549-CV ___________________________

WILLIS ALAN HIZAR, Appellant

V.

777 ER, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024-008451-1

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Willis Alan Hizar, appearing pro se, attempts to appeal from a

default judgment rendered against him in the underlying forcible-detainer action. On

January 28, 2025, we sent Appellant a letter stating that the court was concerned that

this appeal was moot. We explained that

[t]he trial court clerk’s record contains a writ of possession that was executed on December 27, 2024. 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); Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). An appeal in a forcible[-]detainer case becomes moot when the appellant vacates the property unless the appellant holds and asserts a meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787. When a case becomes moot on appeal, we must dismiss the case. See id. at 790.

Because [A]ppellant is no longer in actual possession of the property and does not appear to be asserting a claim of right to current possession of the property, we are concerned that this appeal is moot . . . .

We further stated that unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal

filed a response showing grounds for doing so on or before February 7, 2025, the

appeal would be dismissed. Appellant did not file a response.

Because Appellant is no longer in possession of the property; because he has

not identified an ongoing, live controversy between the parties; and because he has

not shown any other grounds for continuing the appeal, we vacate the trial court’s

judgment and dismiss the case as moot. Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(e); see Marshall, 198

S.W.3d at 785–90 (holding that because the “case [wa]s moot[,] . . . the court of

2 appeals erred in dismissing only the appeal and leaving the trial court’s judgment in

place”); Leija v. De Koro Homes LLC, No. 02-22-00248-CV, 2022 WL 3464771, at *2

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 18, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (vacating judgment and

dismissing case in a similarly moot appeal from a forcible-detainer judgment).

Per Curiam

Delivered: March 20, 2025

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Marshall v. Housing Authority of San Antonio
198 S.W.3d 782 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
Williams v. Lara
52 S.W.3d 171 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Willis Alan Hizar v. 777 ER, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-alan-hizar-v-777-er-llc-texapp-2025.