Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-21-00210-CV
Randy RUSTON and Amanda Ruston,
Appellants
v.
JUMP ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Appellee
From the County Court, Atascosa County, Texas
Trial Court No. 4696
Honorable Bob Brendel, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 11, 2021
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
This is an appeal in a forcible detainer action. Appellants Randy Ruston and Amanda
Ruston challenge the Atascosa County Court at Law’s May 7, 2021 judgment of possession in
favor of appellee Jump Enterprises, LLC. We conclude this appeal is moot and dismiss it for want
of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
On April 16, 2021, Jump Enterprises filed a forcible detainer action in an Atascosa County
justice court, seeking to evict the Rustons on the grounds that Jump Enterprises had “purchased
04-21-00210-CV
the property at foreclosure sale” and “[the Rustons] have no right to possession.” The Rustons did
not appear at the hearing on Jump Enterprises’ petition, and the justice court signed a default
judgment of eviction awarding possession of the premises to Jump Enterprises. The Rustons
appealed to the county court at law and filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court
Costs or an Appeal Bond. After a hearing at which Jump Enterprises and appellant Amanda Ruston
appeared, the county court at law signed a May 7, 2021 judgment awarding possession of the
premises to Jump Enterprises and setting a supersedeas bond of $21,600.
The Rustons timely appealed the county court at law’s judgment to this court, and they
again filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond. On May
19, 2021, the county court at law signed an Order Authorizing Writ of Possession finding, inter
alia, that the Rustons had not paid the supersedeas bond and that its judgment therefore was not
stayed pending the appeal to this court. On May 25, 2021, the county court at law signed a writ of
possession, which the Atascosa County Sheriff executed on June 14, 2021. The officer’s return
states that the execution placed a third party in possession of the property.
ANALYSIS
Applicable Law
The only issue in a forcible detainer action is the right to actual possession of the property.
See TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.3(e); Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of the City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782,
785 (Tex. 2006); see also TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.001–.002. A judgment of possession in such
an action determines only the right to immediate possession and is not a final determination of
whether an eviction is wrongful. Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787. When a forcible detainer defendant
fails to file a supersedeas bond in the amount set by the county court at law, the judgment may be
enforced and a writ of possession may be executed, evicting the defendant from the property. See
TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007; TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.13; Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 786.
-2-
04-21-00210-CV
In an appeal to this court from a county court at law’s judgment of eviction, a party’s
indigence does not relieve her of the obligation to file a supersedeas bond. See TEX. PROP. CODE
§ 24.007 (“A judgment of a county court may not under any circumstances be stayed pending
appeal unless, within 10 days of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond
in an amount set by the county court.”); Johnson v. Freo Tex. LLC, No. 01-15-00398-CV, 2016
WL 2745265, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 10, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). If the
appellant fails to supersede the judgment and loses possession of the property, the appeal is moot
unless she: (1) timely and clearly expressed her intent to appeal and (2) asserted “a potentially
meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the [property].” See Marshall, 198
S.W.3d at 786–87.
Application
Here, the record appears to show that the Rustons failed to supersede the judgment, the
writ of possession was executed, and a third party took possession of the premises. As a result, we
ordered the Rustons to file a written response by July 23, 2021 explaining: (1) whether the writ of
possession was executed; and (2) why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. The Rustons
did not respond to our order. Because the Rustons have not shown they have a potentially
meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the premises, we conclude their appeal
is moot. See id.; Stone v. K Clark Prop. Mgmt. LLC, No. 04-20-00124-CV, 2020 WL 2139294, at
*2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 6, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). We therefore dismiss this appeal
for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
-3-