Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Shawn Keith Bice appealed an eviction judgment entered in favor of SONMO, LLC by Nueces County Court at Law No. 5 on August 24, 2026. On September 8, the court of appeals partially granted Bice’s amended emergency motion for temporary relief and stayed enforcement of the judgment.
SONMO responded that the judgment could no longer be superseded because ten days had passed since its entry and that the appeal was moot because Bice had vacated the premises. On September 22, the court vacated its temporary stay, denied Bice’s motion, and warned that it would dismiss the appeal unless he responded within ten days and showed that the dispute remained live. Bice did not respond.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the appeal was moot because Bice had vacated the property and did not demonstrate that he held and asserted a meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession. Under the governing rule for forcible-detainer appeals, a tenant’s departure generally moots the appeal unless that exception applies.
Because the case was moot, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. It also dismissed based on Bice’s failure to comply with the court’s order requiring a timely response or other action.
Key Takeaways
- A forcible-detainer appeal generally becomes moot when the appellant no longer possesses the property.
- The appeal may remain live if the appellant holds and asserts a meritorious claim to current, actual possession.
- Failure to respond to an appellate court’s order to demonstrate jurisdiction can provide an additional basis for dismissal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an eviction appellant who has left the premises must affirmatively establish a continuing, legally supportable claim to present possession. Without that showing, an appellate court cannot grant meaningful possession-related relief and lacks jurisdiction over the moot dispute.
It also highlights the importance of promptly complying with appellate orders, particularly when the court requests a response addressing a potential jurisdictional defect.