ACCEPTED
03-14-00608-CV
4239789
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
2/20/2015 11:49:59 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
No. 03 -14-00608-CV
IN THE FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
at AUSTIN 2/20/2015 11:49:59 PM
________________________ JEFFREY D. KYLE
Clerk
LINDA S. NOWLIN,
Appellant,
v.
LORI KEATON,
Appellee .
_______________________
Appealed from County Court at Law, Number 1
Travis County, Texas
__________________________________________________
APPELLEE'S BRIEF
___________________________________________________
Respectfully submitted,
Robby P. Abarca
Texas Bar No. 24043515
P.O. Box 152547
Austin, Texas 78715
Tel. (512) 318-4722
Fax (512) 697-2832
rpabarca@abarcalawfirm.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE,
LORI KEATON
APPELLEE REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENT
No. 03-14-00608-CV
LINDA S. NOWLIN,
Appellant,
v.
LORI KEATON,
Appellee .
_____________________________________________
IDENTITY OF PARTIES & COUNSEL
______________________________________________
APPELLANT:
LINDA S. NOWLIN represented by:
Mr. David Nowlin
State Bar No. 24049196
P.O. Box 17511
Austin, Texas 78760
Tel: (512) 468-4882
email: davidnowlin@me.com.
APPELLEE:
LORI KEATON represented by:
Mr. Robby P. Abarca
State Bar No. 24043515
P.O. Box 152547
Austin, Texas 78715
Tel. (512) 318-4722
Fax (512) 697-2832
email: rpabarca@abarcalawfirm.com
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES & COUNSEL..................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................v
REPLY TO ISSUES PRESENTED..........................................................................vi
STATEMENT OF FACTS.........................................................................................1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.....................................................................XX
ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................3
PRAYER..............................................................................................................XX
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.......................................................................10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.............................................................................,,,,11
APPENDIX.............................................................................................................12
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Marshall v. Housing Authority of the City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 787
(Tex. 2006)................................................................................................................4
Betty Geters v. Baytown Housing Authority, 430 S.W.3d 578 (Tex.App.-Houston
2014)..........................................................................................................................4
Sanderson v. Sanderson, 109 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Com.App. 1937)...............................5
Sargent v.Hightight Broadcasting Co.,466S.W.2d 866,867(Tex.Civ.App.-Austin
1971, no writ)............................................................................................................5
E.J. Rohrt et al, v. Kelley Manufacturing Company, 349 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Tex.
1961).........................................................................................................................6
Guarjardo v. Alamo Lumber Company, 317 S.W.2d 725, 726 (Tex.
1958).........................................................................................................................7
RULES
Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.3(e).........................................................................................XX
iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the case
Appellant (landlord) filed an eviction suit against Appellee (tenant) (CR 30).
Appellee filed a general denial. (CR 112).
Course of proceedings
Appellee defeated appellant's eviction suit in Travis County Justice Court Precinct
Two. (CR 11). Appellant appealed. (CR 8).
Appellee won again, this time in Travis County Court at Law Number One (CR
145, 146). Appellant filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and
for new trial, both of which the court overruled. (CR 159, 170).
Trial court disposition
The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict for Appellee on September 17,
2014. (CR 176).
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
v
ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
This appeal is moot because no justiciable, live controversy exists between
the appellant and Appellee; therefore, this appeal must be dismissed because it is
moot.
THIS REST OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
vi
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On May 6, 2014, Appellee (tenant) began leasing from appellant (landlord)
the premises located at 3907 Eck Lane, Austin, Travis County, Texas 78734. (RR
2:27).
On June 4, 2014, appellant posted a Notice to Vacate on Appellee 's front
door stating that the lease was terminated (CR 32).
On June 6, 2014, appellant filed an eviction suit (forcible detainer suit)
against Appellee in Travis County Justice Court where it was assigned Cause No.
J2-CV-14-07434. (CR 30). Appellant's original petition stated that Appellee
should be evicted for violation of lease Paragraph 20 – Prohibited Conduct. (CR
30).
On July 2, 2014, Appellee defeated appellant's June 6th eviction suit. (CR
11). The court's Judgment for Defendant states, “IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED
by the Court that the Defendant. LORI KEATON, [Appellee in this proceeding
before the Third Court of Appeals] continue to use and enjoy possession of the
premises located at 3907 Eck Ln. Austin, Travis County, Texas 78734.” (CR 11).
On July 7, 2014, appellant appealed the judgment in Cause No. J2-CV-14-
07434 to Travis County Court at Law Number 1. (CR 8). The appeal was assigned
Cause No. C-l-CV-14-00693 (CR 8).
1
On August 25, 2014, Appellee won a unanimous jury verdict in Travis
County Court at Law Number 1. (CR 144 – 150).
On September 5, 2014, Appellee voluntarily withdrew her claim to right of
possession to 3907 Eck Lane and move out of the residence (RR SUP:9; RR
SUP:13).
On September 17, 2014, Travis County Court at Law Number 2 signed the
judgment in Appellee 's favor in Cause No. C-l-CV-14-00693. (CR 176). The
court's Final Judgment states, “[T]he Court orders that [appellant in this proceeding
before the Third Court of Appeals] take nothing and that [Appellee in this
proceeding before the Third Court of Appeals] recover court costs from plaintiff.”
(CR 176).
On September 22, 2014, appellant appealed the judgment in Cause No. C-l-
CV-14-00693 to the Third Court of Appeals. The appeal was assigned Cause No.
03-14-00608-CV (CR 177).
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
This appeal is moot and should be dismissed as a matter of law:
1. Appellee does not have a present possessory interest in the property as of
September 5, 2014;
2. Appellee fulfilled her duty to pay rent in July and August 2014;
3. appellant's basis for eviction was not for non-payment of rent;
4. appellant terminated the lease on June 4, 2014 at which time Appellee 's
duty to pay rent ended;
5. appellant's claims of judicial bias are purely subjective and without merit.
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3
ARGUMENT
Argument 1:
Appellee does not have present possessory interest in the residence
as of September 5, 2014 rendering this appeal moot as a matter of law.
“An action for forcible detainer is intended to be a speedy, simple, and
inexpensive means to obtain immediate possession of property.” Marshall v.
Housing Authority of the City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2006).
Further, Rule 510.3(e) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires the court to
adjudicate the right to actual possession and not title. “The only issue in a forcible
detainer action is the right to possession of the premises. Thus, if the tenant no
longer has an arguable right to possession, even once the case is on appeal, a
justiciable controversy ceases to exist, and the case is rendered moot.” Betty
Geters v. Baytown Housing Authority, 430 S.W.3d 578 (Tex.App.-Houston 2014).
Argument 2:
Appellee fulfilled her duty to pay rent in July and August 2014,
and no controversy exists.
On July 3,4, and 7, appellant refused appellee's attempts to pay rent for July.
4
Appellant stated on July 22 that she would never accept rent from appellee. Yet,
in July and August she posted a Notice to Vacate on Appellee's front door stating
failure to pay rent as the basis for the notice.
Because appellant refused Appellee's attempts to pay rent and used non-
payment of rent as a basis for attempting to evict Appellee, Appellee's obligation to
pay rent in July and August is considered fulfilled as a matter of law.
“It is a universal maxim that, where the obligation of a party depends upon a
certain condition being performed, and the fulfillment of that condition is
prevented by the act of the other party, the condition is considered as fulfilled."
Sanderson v. Sanderson, 109 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Com.App. 1937); see also Sargent
v.Hightight Broadcasting Co.,466S.W.2d 866,867(Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1971, no
writ).
Argument 3:
The basis for the eviction suit was for violation of the Lease Paragraph 20-
Prohibited Conduct and not for non payment of rent.
The appellant alleged only that the Appellee violated lease paragraph 20 –
Prohibited Conduct of which the appellant failed to meet her burden of proof in the
eviction suit filed in Justice Court. (CR30)
5
Argument 4:
No further rents are due after the date a lease is terminated
Appellee 's duty to pay rent ended when appellant terminated the lease in her
notice to vacate dated June 4th, 2014. The notice stated, in part: “Your residency is
terminated effective immediately. You are hereby given notice to vacate the
premises on or before midnight, June 5, 2014.” (CR 32).
A landlord may not recover future rents stipulated in a lease when the
landlord, and not the tenant, terminates a lease. E.J. Rohrt et al, v. Kelley
Manufacturing Company, 349 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Tex. 1961).
Argument 5:
The appellant's claims of judicial bias are subjective and without merit.
Furthermore, the appellant's character assassination of Judge Phillips insults
our courts and it's process of justice and order rendering this claim ridiculous
and unfounded and should be disregarded.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6
CONCLUSION:
This appeal has no genuine issues of controversy and is moot as a matter of
law and should be dismissed. The Texas Supreme Court has held that “when a
case becomes moot on appeal, all previous orders are set aside by the appellate
court and the case is dismissed.” Guarjardo v. Alamo Lumber Company, 317
S.W.2d 725, 726 (Tex. 1958).
PRAYER
Appellee requests that the Court dismiss this appeal because it is moot.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Robby Abarca
Robby P. Abarca
Texas Bar No. 24043515
P.O. Box 152547
Austin, Texas 78715
Tel. (512) 318-4722
Fax (512) 697-2832 rpabarca@abarcalawfirm.com
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this document was produced on a computer using Apache
OpenOffice 4.0.1 and contains 1545 words, as determined by the computer
software's word-count function.
/s/ Robby Abarca
Robby P. Abarca
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of Appellee’s Brief was served on Appellant, Linda S.
Nowlin, through her counsel of record, Mr. David Nowlin, 7301 RR 620 North,
Ste. 155, 319, Austin, Texas 78726-4537; tel. (512) 468-4882; email: davidnowlin
@me.com, by electronic service on February 17, 2015 before 5:00 p.m. (local time
of the recipient).
/s/Robby Abarca
Robby P. Abarca
9