Michelle Adame v. Arturo Diaz Appeal from County Court at Law No. 5 of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-21-00080-CV Michelle ADAME, Appellant v. Arturo DIAZ, Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020CV04024 Honorable John Longoria, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 5, 2021 DISMISSED AS MOOT This is an appeal in a forcible detainer action in which the county court signed a judgment of possession in favor of appellee on February 5, 2021. A review of the clerk’s record shows the county clerk issued a writ of possession seeking to enforce that judgment on February 10, 2021. 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 §§ 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 04-21-00080-CV 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, the judgment may be enforced and a writ of possession may be executed, evicting the defendant from the property. See TEX. PROP. CODE § 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 she (1) timely and clearly expressed her 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. The clerk’s record does not indicate appellant filed a supersedeas bond and it is unclear whether the writ of possession was executed. On March 9, 2021, we ordered appellant to file a written response no later than March 19, 2021 explaining whether the writ of possession was executed and why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. Appellant did not respond. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot. 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.
