Opinion
14-22-00622-CV
08-01-2023
SAMUEL DEL BOSQUE, Appellant v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1188194
Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant Samuel del Bosque attempts to appeal a final judgment of possession awarding possession of property to appellee Wells Fargo Bank. Because the trial court's judgment of possession was vacated, the appeal is moot, and we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
The trial court's judgment listed Claudia Rodriguez and/or all occupants of the property as defendants. The notice of appeal was filed by pro se appellant Samuel del Bosque, an occupant of the property, purportedly both on his own behalf and on behalf of Claudia Rodriguez, who did not personally sign the notice of appeal. A pro se party cannot file a notice of appeal on behalf of another person. Trezvant v. Zamprelli, No. 14-21-00308-CV, 2021 WL 5366265, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 18, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). Claudia Rodriguez, therefore, is not a party to this appeal.
Background
On May 24, 2022, Wells Fargo Bank filed a forcible-detainer action in the justice court seeking possession of the property occupied by appellant. The justice court signed a judgment for Wells Fargo, and appellant appealed de novo to the county civil court at law (county court). On August 18, 2022, the county court signed a final judgment granting possession to Wells Fargo. Appellant timely appealed.
A constitutional county court has appellate jurisdiction in civil cases over which the justice courts have original jurisdiction, including forcible entry and detainer suits. See Tex. Gov't Code §§ 26.042(e), 27.031(a)(2); Weeks v. Hobson, 877 S.W.2d 478, 480 n.1 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ). But in those counties having statutory county courts, the county court at law has jurisdiction over all causes and proceedings, civil and criminal, original and appellate, prescribed by law for county courts. See Tex. Gov't Code § 25.0003(a); Weeks, 877 S.W.2d at 480 n.1. Harris County has statutory county courts. See Tex. Gov't Code § 25.1031. Thus, in Harris County, a county civil court at law has jurisdiction over appeals from justice court.
On September 9, 2022, Wells Fargo filed a motion to modify the August judgment seeking to vacate the county court's judgment. According to the motion Wells Fargo sold the property before the county court's rendition of judgment. Because Wells Fargo no longer owned the property it could not maintain a suit for possession. On November 4, 2022, the county court granted Wells Fargo's motion to modify and vacated the judgment. Wells Fargo also non-suited the case, and the county court signed a judgment on November 15, 2022 memorializing the non-suit.
Because the county court vacated its judgment, appellant's appeal is moot. Subject-matter jurisdiction is fundamental to our authority to dispose of cases. Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012) ("a case is moot when the court's action on the merits cannot affect the parties' rights or interest"); Phillips v. Phillips, 651 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.). Neither the Texas Constitution nor the Texas Legislature has vested this court with the authority to render advisory opinions. See Tex. Const. art. II, § 1; Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure Fund, LLC, 619 S.W.3d 628, 634 (Tex. 2021). A case becomes moot when (1) a justiciable controversy no longer exists between the parties, (2) the parties no longer have a legally cognizable interest in the case's outcome, (3) the court can no longer grant the requested relief or otherwise affect the parties' rights or interests, or (4) any decision would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion. State ex rel. Best v. Harper, 562 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. 2018). Stated differently, if a judgment cannot have a practical effect on an existing controversy, the case is moot. Thompson v. Ricardo, 269 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
There is no justiciable controversy if our action on the merits would not affect the parties' rights. Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at 162. In this case, the judgment being appealed has been vacated. Any action on the merits of whether the judgment of possession should have issued would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion. Appellant's appeal is therefore moot.
On July 14, 2023, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court's intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal on or before July 24, 2023. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant did not file a response.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Tex.R.App.P. 42.3(a).