Opinion
05-23-00211-CV
08-02-2023
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-05861-B.
Before Burns, Chief Justice, Molberg, Justice and Pedersen, III, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KEN MOLBERG, JUSTICE.
The only issue in this forcible detainer appeal is whether the trial court properly determined appellee had a superior right of possession to certain property occupied by appellants. See Marshall v. Housing Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 785, 787 (Tex. 2006). By verified motion, appellee informs the Court that appellants are no longer in possession of the property and urges we dismiss the appeal because the case has become moot. See Olley v. HVM, L.L.C., 449 S.W.3d 573, 575 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (appellate courts lack jurisdiction over moot controversies). Appellee also asks we award it attorney's fees and costs. Although appellee's motion has been on file for more than ten days, appellants have not filed a response or otherwise refuted appellee's contention.
Unless a tenant has "a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property," the issue of possession in a forcible detainer action becomes moot when the tenant vacates the property. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 782. When the issue becomes moot on appeal and no other issues exist, the appellate court must vacate the underlying judgment and dismiss the entire underlying case. See id. at 785, 790.
We deny appellee's motion to the extent appellee requests attorney's fees and costs, but, with nothing before us showing appellants have a potentially meritorious claim of right to current possession of the property, we grant the motion to the extent appellee asserts the case has become moot. We vacate the trial court's final judgment and dismiss the case. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 785, 790.
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, we VACATE the trial court's March 6, 2023 final judgment and DISMISS the case.