Opinion issued August 30, 2018
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-18-00337-CV
———————————
LORETTER BROCK, Appellant
V.
YANWEI CEN, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1106584
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this forcible-detainer action, appellant, Loretter Brock, appeals from the
trial court’s judgment granting possession of certain real property to appellee,
Yanwei Cen. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
The only issue in a forcible-detainer action is the right to actual possession of
the subject property; “the merits of the title shall not be adjudicated.” TEX. R. CIV.
P. 746; see Wilhelm v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 349 S.W.3d 766, 768–69 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). Therefore, although the failure to
supersede a forcible-detainer judgment does not divest an appellant of the right to
appeal, an appeal from a forcible-detainer action becomes moot if the 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.
Marshall v. Housing Auth. of the City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 786–87 (Tex.
2006); see Wilhelm, 349 S.W.3d at 768; Gallien v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp.,
No. 01-07-00075-CV, 2008 WL 4670465, at *2–4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
Oct. 23, 2008, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (mem. op.).
The record reflects that appellant did not supersede the judgment, a writ of
possession was executed on April 2, 2018, and that appellant no longer has
possession of the property at issue in the underlying forcible detainer action. On
July 12, 2018, this Court issued a letter informing appellant that the record indicates
that the appeal is moot because appellee now has possession of the subject property.
We requested that appellant file a response to whether the appeal was moot.
Appellant did not timely respond, and, therefore, has failed to assert a potentially
meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property. See
2
Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787; Wilhelm, 349 S.W.3d at 768; Soza v. Fed. Home Loan
Mortg. Corp., No. 01-11-00568-CV, 2013 WL 3148616, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] June 18, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that appellant who failed to
respond to appellee’s motion to dismiss had failed to assert potentially meritorious
claim of right to current, actual possession).
Accordingly, we dismiss the case as moot. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 785,
787, 790; Wilhelm, 349 S.W.3d at 769; Bey v. ASD Fin., Inc., No. 05-14-00534-CV,
2014 WL 4180933, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 11, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.)
(dismissing appeal of forcible detainer action as moot because appellant no longer
possessed property at issue); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). We dismiss all other
pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Caughey.
3