DISMISS, and Opinion Filed August 11, 2014.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00534-CV
TYRONE CASON BEY, Appellant
V.
ASD FINANCIAL, INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-01441-D
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Fillmore, Evans, and Lewis
Opinion by Justice Lewis
In a letter dated July 7, 2014, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal in a
forcible detainer action. Specifically, it appears the appeal is moot because appellee now has
possession of the property. We instructed appellant to file a letter brief explaining how this
Court has jurisdiction and gave appellee an opportunity to file a response.
A case becomes moot if, at any stage during the proceedings, a controversy ceases to
exist between the parties. See Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). The purpose
of a forcible detainer action is to obtain immediate possession of property. See Scott v. Hewitt,
127 Tex. 31, 35, 90 S.W.2d 816, 818-19 (1936). A judgment of possession in a forcible detainer
action determines the right to immediate possession and is not intended to be a final
determination of whether the eviction is wrongful. See Marshall v. Housing Auth. of the City of
San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2006).
On July 3, 2014, the Court received a supplemental clerk’s record containing a return of
service showing the writ of possession had been executed. Appellant filed a jurisdictional brief
and a reply to appellee’s jurisdictional brief. In his jurisdictional brief, appellant merely states
that this Court has jurisdiction over judgments from county courts at law and that he timely filed
his notice of appeal. This argument does not address the mootness issue. In his reply, appellant
counters that the property is “religious property” that was conveyed to a religious society. He
contends that his right to religious freedom has been violated. Again, appellant’s reply did not
address our concern that the appeal is now moot because the issue of possession is no longer in
controversy. Rather, his concerns focus on whether the eviction was wrongful. That
determination is not part of a forcible detainer action. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787.
In its jurisdictional brief, appellee confirmed that it now has possession of the property.
The issue of possession is no longer is controversy. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
/David Lewis/
DAVID LEWIS
JUSTICE
140534F.P05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
TYRONE CASON BEY, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law
No. 4, Dallas County, Texas.
No. 05-14-00534-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-01441-D.
Opinion delivered by Justice Lewis.
ASD FINANCIAL, INC., Appellee Justices Fillmore and Evans, participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellee, ASD FINANCIAL, INC., recover its costs of this appeal
from appellant, TYRONE CASON BEY.
Judgment entered this 11th day of August, 2014.
–3–