Michelle Rowland v. Swaying Oaks Apartments ( 2023 )

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).
PER CURIAM
-2-