Hien Minh Cao v. Hoang Cao Appeal from County Court At Law No. 10 of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-19-00383-CV Hien Minh CAO, Appellant v. Hoang CAO, Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CV03006 Honorable J. Frank Davis, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 21, 2019 VACATED AND DISMISSED This is an appeal from a judgment awarding possession in a forcible detainer action. The issue of possession in a forcible detainer action becomes moot if the judgment is not timely superseded, the appellant is no longer in possession, and the appellant does not have a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession. See Briones v. Brazos Bend Villa Apts., 438 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). If a case is moot, we must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. See id. 04-19-00383-CV In this case, we issued a show cause order, noting a writ of possession had issued, and appellant had not filed a bond to supersede the judgment. We directed appellant to file a response explaining why this case should not be dismissed. Appellant, acting pro se, filed a response relating to the merits of the appeal. The response does not address the issue of whether this appeal is moot. “Judgment of possession in a forcible detainer action is not intended to be a final determination of whether the eviction is wrongful; rather, it is a determination of the right to immediate possession.” Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2006). When the issue of possession becomes moot we will therefore “vacate the trial court’s judgment, and dismiss the case as moot.” Id. at 790. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case as moot. See id. PER CURIAM -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.