Joseph Yammine v. Emad Taq Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-22-00404-CV ___________________________ JOSEPH YAMMINE, Appellant V. EMAD TAQ, Appellee On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022-005127-1 Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Joseph Yammine filed this appeal from the trial court’s forcible detainer judgment against him. The trial court’s judgment awarded Appellee Emad Taq possession of the premises at issue, and Yammine’s brief challenges the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that Taq had superior right to possession. The Texas Property Code provides that a county court’s judgment in an eviction suit may not be appealed “on the issue of possession” unless the property in question is used only for residential purposes. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 24.007. Here, however, the record suggests that the property in question is commercial property, and Yammine confirmed at trial that it was not his residence. Accordingly, on September 15, 2023, we notified Yammine of our concern that we did not have jurisdiction over this appeal. We cautioned Yammine that we would dismiss the appeal unless he or another party filed a response showing grounds for the appeal’s continuance. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. We have not received a response. Because this appeal raises the issue of possession, but the trial evidence demonstrates that the property was not used for residential purposes, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Kinsella v. Kent Sports Holdings, L.P., 636 S.W.3d 331, 332 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2021, no pet.) (per curiam). Per Curiam Delivered: October 19, 2023 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.