Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-16-00520-CV
Alexander MOLINA and Laura Molina,
Appellants
v.
STONEGATE MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2016CV03741
Honorable Jason Wolff, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 23, 2016
DISMISSED AS MOOT
Appellants Alexander Molina and Laura Molina attempt to appeal from a judgment
awarding possession of real property at 7522 Stagecoach Drive, San Antonio, Texas to Appellee
Stonegate Mortgage Corporation which bought the property at a foreclosure sale and then filed a
forcible detainer action in the justice of the peace court to have Appellants evicted. That court
ordered the eviction, and upon Appellants’ appeal de novo, the county court at law likewise
ordered the eviction. The Molinas timely appealed.
04-16-00520-CV
Appellee filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the appeal is moot because the writ of
possession has now been executed and Appellants have no continuing interest in possession of the
property. We requested that Appellants file a response to the motion to dismiss, but Appellants
did not respond.
The Supreme Court of Texas has explained,
The only issue in a forcible detainer action is the right to actual possession of the
premises.
....
An action for forcible detainer is intended to be a speedy, simple, and inexpensive
means to obtain immediate possession of property. Judgment of possession in a
forcible detainer action is not intended to be a final determination of whether the
eviction is wrongful; rather, it is a determination of the right to immediate
possession.
Marshall v. Housing Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 785, 787 (Tex. 2006).
Our review of the record reveals no “potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual
possession” by Appellants. See id. at 787. Further, our review of the record reveals that the only
possible claim on appeal they could have in this matter would be the challenge of costs assessed
against them in the judgment. But the supreme court has held in similar circumstances that an
issue of costs does not prevent the dismissal of the case as moot. Id. at 790. The supreme court
explained that “[i]f the trial court’s judgment is vacated as a result of the case being moot, . . .
either there will be no order assessing costs and each party will be required to pay its own costs . .
., or the appellate court will tax costs.” Id.
Because Appellants have been evicted and the record reveals no potentially meritorious
issue related to possession, and because the issue of costs does not operate to prevent the dismissal
of the case as moot, we grant Appellee’s motion, vacate the trial court’s judgment, and dismiss
this appeal as moot. See id.
PER CURIAM
-2-