Opinion
13-21-00151-CV
06-10-2021
CYNTHIA V. BOLINGER, Appellant, v. MARIA GUADALUPE CONTRERAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 of Cameron County, Texas.
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva
ORDER
PER CURIAM
This cause is before the Court on pro se appellant Cynthia V. Bolinger's "Emergency Motion to Cease and Desist." Appellant requests that she be permitted to return to premises which she has already vacated pursuant to an executed writ of possession.
On March 9, 2021, a judgment of eviction was issued against appellant in favor of appellee Maria Guadalupe Contreras by the Honorable Sallie Gonzalez, Justice of the Peace, Precinct Five of Cameron County, Texas. On March 15, 2021, appellant appealed the judgment of eviction to County Court at Law No. 3, Honorable David Gonzales III, presiding. Appellee subsequently filed a motion to dismiss appellant's appeal on April 12, 2021, which was granted. On May 12, 2021, the trial court granted appellee's motion for writ of possession. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.13. Appellant's "Appeal to Judgment" to this Court and motion for emergency stay followed, wherein appellant requested a stay be issued preventing the execution of the writ of possession.
Following appellant's misrepresentation that the writ had not yet been executed and she had actual possession of the property, this Court temporarily granted appellant's request for stay on May 28, 2021, pending further order of this Court or until this case is finally decided. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b) ("Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided."). This Court further ordered appellee to respond within ten days of the Court's order. On June 4, 2021, appellee informed this Court that appellant vacated the premises prior to her request for emergency stay; we observe that appellant confirms as much in her motion now pending before the Court.
On June 7, 2021, this Court sent appellant a letter requesting confirmation that her appeal had not then become moot. See Marshall v. Hous. Auth. Of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 785 (Tex. 2006) (providing that when an appellant is no longer in possession of the premises, an appeal from the judgment in that case is moot unless the defendant asserts a "potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession"); see also Quezada v. KGMH Prop. Invs., LLC, No. 13-19-00478-CV, 2020 WL 3396601, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 18, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellant has not yet responded.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion, is of the opinion that appellant's "Emergency Motion to Cease and Desist" should be denied. Appellant's emergency motion is hereby DENIED. Further, our prior order granting temporary stay is hereby VACATED, and appellant's motion for stay is DENIED.