Thelma Garza v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                             Fourth Court of Appeals
    San Antonio, Texas
    December 21, 2022
    No. 04-22-00673-CV
    Thelma GARZA et al,
    Appellant
    v.
    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
    Appellees
    From the County Court at Law No. 15, Bexar County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 2022CV01903
    Honorable Melissa Vara, Judge Presiding
    ORDER
    This appeal arises out of a forcible detainer action. Appellant Robert Stricker appeals the
    county court’s judgment awarding possession of a premises to appellee Deutsche Bank National
    Trust Company, as trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006 HE8 Mortgage
    Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE8. The clerk’s record reflects the county court signed
    the order awarding possession on September 26, 2022, granting a writ of possession, but not
    including any monetary award. A writ of possession was issued October 4, 2022. On October 20,
    2022, the county court denied a motion to stay the execution of the writ of possession. The
    record does not show that Appellant filed a supersedeas bond to suspend the judgment. A
    supplemental clerk’s record shows the writ of possession was executed on November 28, 2022
    and possession was delivered to appellee.
    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.). If a former tenant has appealed but has not superseded the
    judgment and is no longer in possession of the property, the appeal is moot unless there is a basis
    for concluding the appeal is not futile. Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of San Antonio, 
    198 S.W.3d 782
    ,
    787 (Tex. 2006). This is because the judgment of possession 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. As explained by this court, “[n]o other issues, controversies or
    rights of the parties related to the property . . . can be adjudicated in a detainer suit.” AAA Free
    Move Ministorage, LLC v. OIS Invs., Inc., 
    419 S.W.3d 522
    , 526 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013,
    pet. denied). With respect to the issue of possession, appellate relief is not futile if the tenant
    holds and asserts “a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession” of the
    property. 
    Id.
     When the tenant’s lease has expired and she identifies no basis for claiming a right
    to possession after that expiration, there is no longer a live controversy between the parties as to
    the right of current possession. 
    Id.
     However, we may consider an appeal that is otherwise moot if
    the record establishes that vacating the underlying judgment will not cure adverse collateral
    consequences of the judgment. Id. at 788-89.
    Here, Stricker did not file a supersedeas bond and he is no longer in possession of the
    premises. Accordingly, this appeal appears to be moot unless Stricker can identify a basis for
    claiming a right to actual possession of the property. We therefore order Robert Stricker to file a
    response in this court by January 5, 2023 explaining why this appeal should not be dismissed as
    moot. A failure to timely respond and show this court why this appeal is not moot will result in a
    dismissal of this appeal.
    _________________________________
    Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
    court on this 21st day of December, 2022.
    ___________________________________
    MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-22-00673-CV

Filed Date: 12/21/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/27/2022