Opinion
No. 10-03-072-CV.
Opinion delivered and filed August 20, 2003.
Appeal from the 40th District Court, Ellis County, Texas, Trial Court #53,376.
Dismissed.
Brett L. Bigham, Attorney at Law, Waxahachie, TX, for appellant.
Dale E. Ellyson, Attorney at Law, Waxahachie, TX, for appellee.
Before Justice VANCE, Justice GRAY, and Senior Justice HILL (sitting by assignment).
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Robert Ross obtained a judgment against Jerry Hamilton. The judgment required, among other things, the removal of slag type materials from Ross's property and the construction of a retaining wall along the property line between Ross's property and Hamilton's property. Hamilton failed to timely satisfy at least these two aspects of the final judgment.
Ross obtained an order of enforcement by contempt. The order, after reciting a determination that Hamilton had the ability to perform the judgment but had failed to do so, found Hamilton in contempt for the two failures discussed above. The order assessed punishment for the contempt at 180 days in the Ellis County jail for each violation. No other relief was ordered.
Hamilton perfected this appeal of the order.
Hamilton died while the appeal was pending.
Hamilton's counsel advised this Court that Hamilton had died.
The clerk of this Court notified Hamilton's counsel and the remaining parties of our intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
We can grant no relief in this appeal that will affect the rights of the parties. Thus, this appeal is moot. Pinnacle Gas Treating, Inc. v. Read, 104 S.W.3d 544, 545 (Tex. 2003). Stated another way, if a judgment cannot have a practical effect on an existing controversy, the case is moot. Olson v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 901 S.W.2d 520, 522 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, no pet.). If relief other than being committed to jail for contempt had been ordered, this appeal could proceed as to that relief under rule 7.1(a)(1). No other relief was ordered. Because there is no existing case or controversy that we can affect, this appeal is moot. Thus, we have no jurisdiction of this appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.