Crystal Wriston and All Other Occupants v. Housing Authority of the City of San Antonio, Texas ( 2024 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-24-00240-CV
Crystal WRISTON,
Appellant
v.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2023CV07119
Honorable Cesar Garcia, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 3, 2024
VACATED AND CASE DISMISSED
Appellant Crystal Wriston seeks to appeal the trial court’s March 1, 2024 judgment of
eviction in a forcible detainer action. The clerk’s record shows appellant did not pay a supersedeas
bond to stay execution of the judgment, and the county court at law subsequently issued a writ of
possession to enforce the judgment. The writ of possession was executed on April 4, 2024, and
the officer’s return on the executed writ of possession states possession of the premises was
delivered to appellee.
04-24-00240-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.). In general, 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.). The only issue in a forcible detainer action is the right to
actual possession of the property. See 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); see also TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 24.001–.002. An
appeal of a judgment of possession in a forcible detainer action becomes moot if the judgment is
not timely superseded, the appellant is no longer in possession, and the appellant does not have a
potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at
786–87.
Here, the record shows appellant did not pay a supersedeas bond to stay execution of the
March 1, 2024 judgment, and the writ of possession was subsequently executed. We therefore
issued a show cause order, noting this appeal appeared moot. See id. In our order, we directed
appellant to file a response by May 15, 2024, explaining: (1) whether she has a potentially
meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property and (2) why this appeal
should not be dismissed as moot. We cautioned appellant failure to timely respond and show how
this court has jurisdiction would result in a dismissal of this appeal. Appellant did not file a
response. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss this case as moot. See
id. at 788 (“One purpose of vacating the underlying judgment if a case becomes moot during appeal
is to prevent prejudice to the rights of the parties when appellate review of a judgment on its merits
is precluded.”).
PER CURIAM
-2-