Houston Housing Authority v. the Honorable Mike Parrott ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Appeal Dismissed as Moot and Memorandum
    Opinion Filed August 8, 2017.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    ____________
    NO. 14-16-00275-CV
    ____________
    HOUSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant
    V.
    HONORABLE MIKE PARROTT, Appellee
    On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 1072783
    ____________
    NO. 14-16-00249-CV
    ____________
    IN RE HOUSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY, Relator
    WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    County Civil Court at Law No. 3
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 1072783
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    On March 28, 2015, appellant Houston Housing Authority (“HHA”) filed a notice
    of appeal from the Honorable Linda Storey’s order of March 9, 2016, denying HHA’s
    petition for writ of mandamus against the Honorable Mike Parrott (appellate cause
    number 14-16-00275-CV). On March 29, 2015, relator HHA filed a petition for writ of
    mandamus seeking relief from the same order (appellate cause number 14-16-00249-CV).
    On May 3, 2016, we consolidated the proceedings.
    BACKGROUND
    The record reflects this case began when HHA filed a petition for forcible detainer
    against Bobbie Figures and all other occupants of property located on Forest Hollow in
    Houston, Texas (the “property”) in the Justice Court of Harris County, Precinct 3.
    Judgment was entered in favor of HHA on December 30, 2015, by Judge Parrott. On
    January 15, 2016, Sonfronia Thompson requested by letter the judgment be set aside and
    the defendant be given an opportunity to have counsel.1 The letter stated the defendant
    was indigent, not represented by counsel, eighty years of age, and did not understand the
    proceedings. On January 20, 2016, Judge Parrott set aside the judgment, reinstated the
    case on the court’s docket, and set the case for trial on January 27, 2016. HHA complains
    it did not get notice, a hearing, or an opportunity to respond. On the day the judgment was
    set aside, the trial court signed a reset notice addressed to Thompson stating the case had
    been reset for trial. Figures, now represented by Thompson, filed a Motion to Set Aside
    Judgment and Cancel Writ of Possession. The motion does not contain a file stamp; the
    certificate of service provides it was served on opposing counsel on January 21, 2016.
    HHA filed a petition for writ of mandamus in County Court at Law Number 3
    seeking to have Judge Parrott’s order of January 20, 2016, declared void. The grounds for
    the petition were that because Judge Parrott’s plenary power had expired on January 4,
    2016, he lacked jurisdiction to set aside his judgment. HHA further complained that Judge
    1
    The record does not reflect in what capacity Thompson was acting at this time.
    2
    Parrott failed to state the reasons he granted a new trial. Harris County, Texas (“the
    County”) responded to the petition on behalf of Judge Parrott, the named respondent.
    HHA filed a reply to which the County again responded on behalf of Judge Parrott. A
    hearing was held and the petition for writ of mandamus was denied. From that order,
    HHA filed this appeal as well as a petition for writ of mandamus.
    ANALYSIS
    HHA acknowledges in its brief that Figures has since vacated the property. The
    only issue in a forcible detainer action is the right to possession of the premises. See
    Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of San Antonio, 
    198 S.W.3d 782
    , 785–86 (Tex. 2006). Thus, if
    the tenant no longer has an arguable right to possession, even once the case is on appeal,
    a justiciable controversy ceases to exist, and the case is rendered moot. See 
    id. at 785–87;
    see also In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 
    166 S.W.3d 732
    , 737 (Tex. 2005) (“A case
    becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal
    proceedings, including the appeal.”). We lack jurisdiction to decide moot controversies
    and render advisory opinions. See NCAA v. Jones, 
    1 S.W.3d 83
    , 86 (Tex. 1999); In re H
    & R Block Fin. Advisors, Inc., 
    262 S.W.3d 896
    , 900 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
    2008, orig. proceeding).
    Figures has not filed a brief in this appeal and has no claim of “a potentially
    meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession.” 
    Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787
    ;
    Wilhelm v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 
    349 S.W.3d 766
    , 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
    Dist.] 2011, no pet.). HHA, however, contends this appeal falls within both exceptions to
    the mootness doctrine: (1) the capability-of-repetition-yet-evading- review exception;
    and, (2) the collateral-consequences exception. State v. Lodge, 
    608 S.W.2d 910
    , 912 (Tex.
    1980). HHA’s basis for its contention is Thompson’s letter sent to Judge Parrott on
    Figures’ behalf.
    In considering whether the appeal falls within an exception to the mootness
    3
    doctrine, we consider the nature of the underlying action and the requested relief. Cf. In
    re Uresti, 
    377 S.W.3d 696
    , 696 (Tex. 2012). HHA’s live pleading asked for mandamus
    relief from the County Court at Law on the stated grounds that (1) the justice of the peace
    set aside a judgment in HHA’s favor after the justice court’s plenary power expired and
    (2) the justice of the peace did not give the reasons for setting aside the judgment. HHA
    has not sought any relief based on Thompson’s letter, so it is not relevant to whether
    HHA’s action falls within either exception to the mootness doctrine. Moreover, for
    independent reasons, HHA’s action fails to come within either exception to the mootness
    doctrine.
    Capable-of-Repetition-Yet-Evading Review Exception to Mootness
    An act is considered “capable of repetition yet evading review” when “the
    challenged act is of such short duration that the appellant cannot obtain review before the
    issue becomes moot” and “there is a reasonable expectation that the same action will
    occur again if the issue is not considered.” Blum v. Lanier, 
    997 S.W.2d 259
    , 264 (Tex.
    1999). The Supreme Court of Texas has held the government may not use the capable-
    of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to preserve its right to appeal when the
    complaining party has no basis for pursuing its claim for relief. General Land Office of
    the State of Tex. v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 
    789 S.W.2d 569
    , 571 (Tex. 1990). HHA has not
    briefed whether it is a governmental agency that is precluded from using this exception
    to the mootness doctrine. Nor does the record reveal whether HHA is a governmental
    entity. But, even if HHA may invoke this exception to the mootness doctrine, HHA has
    neither alleged nor shown that HHA expects to be subjected to the same action without
    the opportunity for appellate review. See In re 
    Uresti, 377 S.W.3d at 696
    . Without that
    showing, HHA cannot come within the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review
    exception to the mootness doctrine.
    4
    Collateral-Consequences Exception to Mootness
    The   collateral-consequences    exception     is   invoked   only   under   narrow
    circumstances, when vacating the underlying judgment would not cure the adverse
    consequences suffered by the appellant. 
    Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 789
    . To invoke this
    exception, an appellant must show (1) a concrete disadvantage resulted from the
    judgment; and (2) the disadvantage will persist even if the judgment is vacated and the
    case dismissed as moot. 
    Id. Although HHA
    contends this exception applies to the present
    appeal, in its briefing HHA does not attempt to demonstrate a concrete disadvantage
    resulted from the challenged action of the trial court; or (2) HHA will continue to suffer
    any adverse consequences if the judgment below is vacated and the cause dismissed as
    moot. See Reule v. RLZ Invs., 
    411 S.W.3d 31
    , 33 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013,
    no pet.) (declining to apply collateral-consequences exception where appellant failed to
    explain why perceived disadvantage would persist after judgment was vacated).
    Therefore, we decline to hold the second exception applies to the circumstances of this
    case.
    CONCLUSION
    If our decision cannot have a practical effect on an existing controversy, the case
    is moot. Accordingly, without reference to the merits, we overrule HHA’s issues and
    dismiss the appeal and the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. See Frisco Square
    Developers, LLC v. KPitch Enters., LLC, No. 05-16-00992-CV, 
    2017 WL 2687521
    , at *2
    (Tex. App.—Dallas June 22, 2017, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
    /s/       John Donovan
    Justice
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Wise.
    5