Frank Herrera v. Inverterra Holdings, LLC ( 2023 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
January 20, 2023
No. 04-22-00794-CV
Frank HERRERA,
Appellant
v.
INVERTERRA HOLDINGS, LLC,
Appellee
From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2022CV05121
Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding
ORDER
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 November 18, 2022.
The clerk’s record does not show that appellant requested or paid a supersedeas bond to stay
execution of the judgment. The record shows the county court at law subsequently issued a writ
of possession to enforce the November 18 judgment, and the writ of possession was executed on
December 2, 2022.
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 an
appellant fails to file 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 he: (1) timely and clearly expressed his
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 appears to show that appellant did not pay a supersedeas bond to stay
execution of the November 18, 2022 judgment and that the writ of possession was subsequently
executed, this appeal may be moot. We therefore ORDER appellant to file a written response by
January 30, 2023 explaining: (1) whether the writ of possession was executed; and (2) why this
appeal should not be dismissed as moot.
All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of this court.
_________________________________
Beth Watkins, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 20th day of January, 2023.
___________________________________
MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court