Kendra Petitt v. Gina D. Feist ( 2024 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-24-00497-CV
Kendra PETITT,
Appellant
v.
Gina D. FEIST,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2024CV02564
Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 16, 2024
DISMISSED AS MOOT
This is an appeal in a forcible detainer action in which the clerk’s record shows the
county court at law signed a judgment of possession in favor of appellee on July 5, 2024. The
clerk’s record shows that the county court set a supersedeas bond of $3,000 to stay execution of
the judgment, but the record does not show that appellant paid the bond. The record further
shows the county court at law issued a writ of possession to enforce the July 5 judgment, and the
04-24-00497-CV
writ of possession was executed on July 25, 2024. The executed writ notes, “Property returned to
Agent/Colby Taylor at above address.”
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 ANN. §§ 24.001–.002. 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 was wrongful. Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787. When a
forcible detainer defendant fails to pay a supersedeas bond in the amount set by the county court
at law, 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 she: (1) timely and clearly expressed
her intent to appeal; and (2) asserted “a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual
possession of the [property].” See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 786–87.
Because the record appeared to show appellant did not pay a supersedeas bond to stay
execution of the judgment and that the writ of possession was subsequently executed, we ordered
appellant to file a written response by September 3, 2024 showing why the appeal should not be
dismissed as moot. Appellant did not respond to our order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal
as moot.
PER CURIAM
-2-