Opinion
04-24-00469-CV
08-09-2024
Ericka B. Fischer v. Talavera Luxury Apartments, LLC
From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024CV02554 Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Beth Watkins, Justice
This is an appeal in a forcible detainer action in which the clerk's record shows the county court at law signed a judgment of possession in favor of appellee on April 12, 2024. The clerk's record shows that appellant asked the trial court to set a supersedeas bond to stay execution of the judgment, but the record does not show that the trial court set the bond or that appellant paid a bond. The record shows the county court at law subsequently issued a writ of possession to enforce the April 12 judgment, and the writ of possession was executed on June 28, 2024. The executed writ recites that the premises were released to an individual other than appellant and that appellant "was removed from [the] scene."
The only issue in a forcible detainer action is the right to actual possession of the property. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.3(E); Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of the City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 785 (Tex. 2006); see also TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. §§ 24.001-.002. A JUDGMENT OF POSSESSION IN SUCH AN ACTION DETERMINES ONLY THE RIGHT TO IMMEDIATE POSSESSION AND IS NOT A FINAL DETERMINATION OF WHETHER AN EVICTION WAS WRONGFUL. Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787. When a forcible detainer defendant fails to pay a supersedeas bond in the amount set by the county court at law, the judgment may be enforced and a writ of possession may be executed, evicting the defendant from the property. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007; TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.13; Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 786. If a forcible detainer defendant fails to supersede the judgment and loses possession of the property, the appeal is moot unless he: (1) timely and clearly expressed his intent to appeal; and (2) asserted "a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the [property]." See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 786-87.
Because the record appears to show that appellant did not pay a supersedeas bond to stay execution of the April 12, 2024 judgment and that the writ of possession was subsequently executed, this appeal may be moot. We therefore ORDER appellant to file a written response by August 19, 2024 explaining: (1) whether she has a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property; and (2) why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot.
All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of this court.