Robert Qualia v. Thomas M. Qualia and John Qualia--Appeal from 63rd Judicial District Court of Val Verde County

Appellant

v.

Thomas M. QUALIA and John Qualia,

Appellees

From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17,780

Honorable Robert L. Eschenburg, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Paul W. Green, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 29, 2001

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Robert Louis Qualia (Robert) appealed the trial court's entry of orders compelling him to turn over property to satisfy an adverse judgment and to produce documents. While the appeal was pending, the appellees, Thomas and John Qualia (Thomas and John), filed a motion to hold Robert in contempt of the orders. The trial court denied the motion, finding, inter alia, Robert did not violate the orders. Accordingly, Robert requests this Court dismiss his appeal because his challenge to the orders' validity has been rendered moot. We grant the motion and dismiss his appeal.

After the jury found Robert liable for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence, Thomas and John filed a motion for turnover relief to seek enforcement of the judgment and a motion to compel Robert to produce certain documents. The trial court granted the motions. Robert appealed, challenging the orders' validity on three grounds: (1) collateral estoppel and res judicata; (2) insufficient evidence of Robert's ownership of the property in question; and (3) improperly designating Thomas and John as receivers of the property.

Dismissal

Subsequent to perfecting this appeal, Robert filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing we lack subject matter jurisdiction because the issues have become moot. Robert claims the trial court's finding that he did not fail to comply with the orders renders moot his validity challenge to the orders. "[I]t is axiomatic that appellate courts do not decide cases in which no controversy exists between the parties." Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Safe Tire Disposal Corp., 2 S.W.3d 393, 395 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (quoting Camarena v. Tex. Employment Comm'n, 754 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex. 1988)); City of Austin v. L.S. Ranch, Ltd., 970 S.W.2d 750, 755 (Tex. App.-Austin 1998, no pet.) (stating cases are moot "when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome") (quoting Camarena, 754 S.W.2d at 151). Further, an appellate court may dismiss an appeal at the appellant's request so long as the dismissal "will not prejudice the remaining parties." Tex. R. App. P. 42.1.

In their appellate brief, the appellees request we overrule Robert's validity challenges and affirm the trial court's orders. By dismissing Robert's appeal, we refrain from questioning the validity of the orders, and therefore, do not prejudice the appellees. Therefore, we grant Robert's motion.

We dismiss this appeal at Robert's request.

PAUL W. GREEN

Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH