Opinion
04-23-00918-CV
02-07-2024
Cortlandt OVERBAY, Appellant v. FRANKEL FAMILY TRUST D/B/A Sedona Ranch Apartments, Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023-CV-05195 Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
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 October 6, 2023. The clerk's record does not show that appellant paid a supersedeas bond to stay execution of the judgment. The record shows the county court at law subsequently issued a writ of possession to enforce the October 6 judgment, and the writ of possession was executed on November 9, 2023. The officer's return states that on the date the writ was executed, appellant's personal possessions were removed from the premises, the locks were changed, and the property manager took possession of the premises.
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 appeared to show that appellant did not pay a supersedeas bond to stay execution of the October 6, 2023 judgment and that the writ of possession was subsequently executed, we ordered appellant to file a written response by January 12, 2024 explaining why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. Appellant did not file a response to our order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
Dismissed for want of Jurisdiction.