TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-13-00770-CV
Wanda McDonald, Appellant
v.
Federal National Mortgage Association, Appellee
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 13-1456-CC4, HONORABLE JOHN McMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Wanda McDonald appeals the trial court’s judgment in a forcible detainer
suit that awarded possession of certain real property to appellee Federal National Mortgage
Association (FNMA). As a preliminary matter, FNMA argues that this appeal has become moot
because McDonald failed to supersede the judgment and because FNMA obtained a writ of
possession and has had possession of the property since the writ was executed. See Tex. Prop. Code
§ 24.007 (requiring supersedeas bond for stay of county court’s judgment in eviction suit).
The purpose of a forcible detainer action is to obtain immediate possession of
property. See Scott v. Hewitt, 90 S.W.2d 816, 818-19 (1936). Judgment of possession in a forcible
detainer action does not determine whether an eviction is wrongful but does determine the right to
immediate possession. See Marshall v. Housing Auth. of the City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782,
787 (Tex. 2006); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.3(e) (“only issue” before justice court in eviction cases
is “right to actual possession and not title”). Failure to supersede a forcible-detainer judgment will
not divest appellant of the right to appeal, but the judgment may be enforced including the issuance
of a writ of possession evicting the tenant from the premises. Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 786-87. An
appeal from a forcible-detainer action becomes moot if appellant is no longer in possession of the
property, unless the appellant holds and asserts “a potentially meritorious claim of right to current,
actual possession” of the property. Id. at 787.
Here, McDonald did not supersede the judgment and FNMA has had possession
of the property since February 21, 2014, when the writ of possession was executed. FNMA filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal, and this Court requested that McDonald file a response to FNMA’s
motion by March 10, 2014. McDonald failed to file any response, and as such, has not asserted
a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property. See Marshall,
198 S.W.3d at 787; Rady v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. 03-11-00734-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 1933,
at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 9, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that appellant who failed
to respond to appellee’s motion to dismiss failed to assert potentially meritorious claim of right to
current, actual possession of property).
Accordingly, we grant FNMA’s motion and dismiss this appeal as moot.
Jeff Rose, Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose
Dismissed as Moot
Filed: April 10, 2014
2