Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Landlord Hamza Khan filed an eviction action against tenant Steven J. Stringfellow for nonpayment of rent and holding over after termination of an oral month-to-month lease. The justice court awarded Khan possession and $2,700 in back rent. Stringfellow perfected an appeal to the county court at law by filing a statement of inability to afford court costs or an appeal bond, but the record did not show that he deposited the required one month’s rent into the justice court registry.
Stringfellow later alleged that a writ of possession had been executed unlawfully and sought restoration of the premises. Although the county court permitted him to attend the trial de novo remotely, he appeared neither in person nor by Zoom. Khan told the court that he had already regained the property and did not wish to pursue back rent or any other relief. At Khan’s request, the county court dismissed the case without prejudice.
Stringfellow appealed, arguing that Khan’s nonsuit eliminated the landlord’s right to relief and that the county court should have canceled the justice court’s writ and ordered possession returned to him.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals held that the eviction controversy was moot. Although Stringfellow did not voluntarily surrender possession, he failed to show a potentially meritorious right to current, actual possession. His statement of inability to pay perfected the appeal but did not stay execution of a writ of possession, and the record contained no evidence that any writ was improperly executed.
The court emphasized that Stringfellow did not appear for the trial de novo to establish his defenses or show a violation of the governing Property Code provision. Because Khan already possessed the premises and then nonsuited his remaining claim for rent, no live controversy remained. The county court had already taken the appropriate action by dismissing the entire case.
Because Texas courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot controversies, the appellate court dismissed Stringfellow’s appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Perfecting an eviction appeal through a statement of inability to pay does not, by itself, stay execution of a writ of possession.
- A tenant who no longer possesses the premises must assert and support a potentially meritorious right to current, actual possession to avoid mootness.
- Once the landlord had regained possession and abandoned the remaining rent claim, no live controversy remained for either the trial court or the appellate court to decide.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between perfecting an eviction appeal and preventing enforcement of a possession judgment while that appeal proceeds. Tenants must comply with the applicable rent-deposit requirements and present evidence supporting their claimed right to possession.
It also reinforces that an eviction appeal cannot continue merely to challenge past possession when no potentially meritorious claim to present possession or other unresolved relief remains.