Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-21-00548-CV
Luis G. SEGURA,
Appellant
v.
Luis SEGURA,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2021CV02922
Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 20, 2022
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
This is an appeal in a forcible detainer action. Appellant Luis G. Segura challenges the
Bexar County Court at Law’s November 19, 2021 judgment of possession in favor of appellee
Luis Segura. We conclude this appeal is moot and dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
On July 13, 2021, appellee filed a forcible detainer action in a Bexar County justice court,
seeking to evict appellant on the grounds that appellant had failed to pay rent for three years and
had unlawfully failed to vacate at the end of the rental term. Appellant filed an answer and a
04-21-00548-CV
Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond, and he appeared at
the hearing on appellee’s petition. On July 30, 2021, the justice court signed a judgment of eviction
awarding possession of the premises to appellee.
Appellant appealed to the county court at law. After a hearing at which appellee appeared
but appellant did not, the county court at law signed a November 19, 2021 default judgment
awarding possession of the premises to appellee. Appellant filed a motion to set aside the default
judgment and a motion for new trial. He also filed a motion to set a supersedeas bond, and the
county court at law set the amount of that bond at $4,500. On November 30, 2021, appellant filed
a motion objecting to the amount of the bond, arguing that he was indigent and had no assets with
which to pay the bond. The record does not indicate whether the county court at law ever heard
that motion.
Appellant timely appealed the county court at law’s judgment to this court. On December
10, 2021, the Bexar County Clerk issued a writ of possession. On January 7, 2022, the Bexar
County Constable executed the writ and delivered possession of the property to appellee.
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-
04-21-00548-CV
In an appeal to this court from a county court at law’s judgment of eviction, a party’s
indigence does not relieve him 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 he: (1) timely and clearly expressed his 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 appellant failed to file a supersedeas bond in the
amount paid by the county court at law within ten days of the judgment. The record also appears
to show that the writ of possession was executed and appellee took possession of the premises. As
a result, we ordered appellant to file a written response by March 28, 2022 explaining: (1) whether
the writ of possession was executed; and (2) why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot.
Appellant did not respond to our order. Because appellant has not shown he has a potentially
meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the premises, we conclude his 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-