in Re: Bradley Scott Kidwell Dba McKinney Vintage Market Dba Kidwell and Company, and All Other Occupants ( 2021 )

DISMISS Opinion Filed October 6, 2021
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00588-CV
IN RE BRADLEY SCOTT KIDWELL DBA MCKINNEY VINTAGE
MARKET DBA KIDWELL AND COMPANY, AND ALL OTHER
OCCUPANTS, Relators
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 007-00207-2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Smith, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Schenck
Relator Bradley Scott Kidwell appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of
mandamus in the county court at law. Kidwell’s petition sought a writ directing a
justice of the peace to vacate orders entered in three underlying forcible entry and
detainer actions. Respondent Judge Paul Raleeh filed a motion to dismiss this appeal
due to mootness. Because we agree this appeal is moot, we dismiss this case for
lack of jurisdiction. Because all issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum
opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
BACKGROUND
Kidwell obtained a line of credit secured by three commercial properties from
Haddington Fund, LP. After a dispute arose, Haddington foreclosed on the
properties. Kidwell filed suit in a district court disputing the foreclosure.
Haddington filed petitions in a justice of the peace court for forcible entry and
detainer against Kidwell, relating to the three properties. Haddington and Kidwell
entered into a Rule 11 agreement to abate the three forcible detainer suits until the
foreclosure suit was decided. That agreement provided Kidwell would deposit
$10,000 into the registry of the justice of the peace each month. After the foreclosure
suit concluded, the justice of the peace, Judge Raleeh, conducted trials of the forcible
detainer actions and ultimately signed eviction orders in all three, which awarded
possession to Haddington. Those orders also awarded the balance in the court’s
registry, totaling $200,000, to Haddington as “back rent,” and set an appeal bond in
the amount of $20,000.
Kidwell filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the county court at law
“directing Judge Raleeh and the Justice Court . . . to vacate the January 14, 2019
Eviction Order with regard to rentals, the distribution of the $200,000.00 to
Haddington, and the $20,000-bond.” Judge Raleeh moved to dismiss the petition
pursuant to rule 91a and sought the alternative relief of a plea to the jurisdiction.
Judge Raleeh’s motion argued Kidwell had an adequate remedy by appeal and had
been “vigorously exercising his various rights to appeal.” The county court at law
–2–
granted Judge Raleeh’s motion and signed an order denying Kidwell’s petition and
dismissing the case. Kidwell now appeals that order.
JURISDICTION
As a preliminary matter, we address Judge Raleeh’s motion to dismiss. In his
motion, Judge Raleeh argues this appeal is moot because events subsequent to the
order dismissing Kidwell’s petition have rendered the relief sought therein moot. A
case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage
of the legal proceedings, including the appeal. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root,
Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005). An issue becomes moot when (1) it appears
that one seeks to obtain a judgment on some controversy, which in reality does not
exist or (2) when one seeks a judgment on some matter which, when rendered for
any reason, cannot have any practical legal effect on a then-existing controversy.
City of Farmers Branch v. Ramos, 235 S.W.3d 462, 469 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007,
no pet.). If a case is or becomes moot, the court must dismiss the case for want
of jurisdiction. See Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012).
The only relief sought by Kidwell in the mandamus petition was to vacate the
orders distributing $200,000 to Haddington and to challenge the amount of the
appeal bond. However, Judge Raleeh asserts, and Kidwell admits in response to the
motion to dismiss, that the $200,000 was released to the Haddington Fund the day
after the county court at law dismissed Kidwell’s petition. Additionally, in the sur-
reply to Judge Raleeh’s motion to dismiss, Kidwell admits he non-suited his appeal
–3–
of the county court at law’s denial of his sworn statement of inability to pay the
appeal bond but asserts he has filed direct appeals of the eviction orders.
In this appeal, Kidwell seeks to vacate an order granting money that has
already been paid to Haddington who is not a party to these mandamus proceedings
and challenging an appeal bond when he has already nonsuited his appeal of the
denial of his inability to pay that bond. Therefore, any judgment of this Court on the
merits of Kidwell’s appeal would have no practical legal effect on a then-existing
controversy. See Ramos, 235 S.W.3d 462, 469. Accordingly, we agree this case is
moot, grant Judge Raleeh’s motion, and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
See Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at 162.
CONCLUSION
We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
/David J. Schenck/
DAVID J. SCHENCK
JUSTICE
190588F.P05
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN RE BRADLEY SCOTT On Appeal from the County Court at
KIDWELL DBA MCKINNEY Law No. 7, Collin County, Texas
VINTAGE MARKET DBA Trial Court Cause No. 007-00207-
KIDWELL AND COMPANY, AND 2019.
ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Opinion delivered by Justice
Relators Schenck. Justices Smith and Garcia
participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
It is ORDERED that respondent recover his costs of this appeal from
relators BRADLEY SCOTT KIDWELL DBA MCKINNEY VINTAGE MARKET
DBA KIDWELL AND COMPANY, AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS.
Judgment entered this 6th day of October 2021.
–5–