Opinion
04-21-00210-CV
07-13-2021
Randy RUSTON and Amanda Ruston, Appellants v. JUMP ENTERPRISES, Appellee
From the County Court, Atascosa County, Texas Trial Court No. 4696 Honorable Bob Brendel, 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 May 7, 2021 and an Order Authorizing Writ of Possession on May 19, 2021. The clerk's record also shows that in its May 19 order, the county court at law found it had set a supersedeas bond and appellants failed to pay the bond. The supplemental clerk's record shows the county court at law subsequently issued a writ of possession to enforce the May 7 judgment and that the writ of possession was executed on June 14, 2021.
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 is wrongful. Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787. When an appellant fails to file 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 appellants did not pay the supersedeas bond set by the county court at law and that the writ of execution was subsequently executed, this appeal may be moot. We therefore ORDER appellants to file a written response by July 23, 2021 explaining: (1) whether the writ of possession was executed; and (2) why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot.
All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of this court. This suspension of appellate deadlines includes our July 1, 2021 order directing the county court at law to hold a hearing on the court reporter's contest to appellants' statement of inability to pay court costs.