Frank Herrera v. Inverterra Holdings, LLC

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 20, 2023 No. 04-22-00794-CV Frank HERRERA, Appellant v. INVERTERRA HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellee From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022CV05121 Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding ORDER This is an appeal in a forcible detainer action in which the clerk’s record shows the county court at law signed a judgment of possession in favor of appellee on November 18, 2022. The clerk’s record does not show that appellant requested or paid a supersedeas bond to stay execution of the judgment. The record shows the county court at law subsequently issued a writ of possession to enforce the November 18 judgment, and the writ of possession was executed on December 2, 2022. 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 was wrongful. Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787. When an appellant 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. If a forcible detainer defendant 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. Because the record appears to show that appellant did not pay a supersedeas bond to stay execution of the November 18, 2022 judgment and that the writ of possession was subsequently executed, this appeal may be moot. We therefore ORDER appellant to file a written response by January 30, 2023 explaining: (1) whether the writ of possession was executed; and (2) why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of this court. _________________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 20th day of January, 2023. ___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court