Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Houston Housing Authority v. the Honorable Mike Parrott
Citation: Not availableDocket: 14-16-00275-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 8, 2017; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Appeal filed by the Houston Housing Authority (HHA) was dismissed as moot in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. The case originated from HHA's forcible detainer action against Bobbie Figures, with a judgment favoring HHA issued on December 30, 2015. After Figures, represented by attorney Sonfronia Thompson, requested to set aside the judgment due to her indigence and lack of representation, Judge Mike Parrott granted the request on January 20, 2016, which HHA contested, arguing that Judge Parrott lacked jurisdiction as his plenary power had expired. HHA's petition for writ of mandamus was denied, leading to this appeal. The court determined that since Figures had vacated the property, there was no longer a justiciable controversy regarding possession, rendering the case moot. The court emphasized that it lacks jurisdiction over moot controversies and cannot issue advisory opinions. Figures did not contest the appeal or assert any claim to possession, further supporting the decision of mootness. HHA argues that its appeal falls under two exceptions to the mootness doctrine: the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception and the collateral-consequences exception. The basis for this argument is Thompson's letter to Judge Parrott regarding Figures. When assessing mootness exceptions, the nature of the underlying action and the requested relief are considered. HHA's live pleading seeks mandamus relief, asserting that a justice of the peace improperly set aside a judgment in its favor after the expiration of the justice court's plenary power and failed to provide reasons for the action. However, since HHA did not seek relief based on Thompson's letter, it is irrelevant to the mootness exceptions. Regarding the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception, it applies when the challenged act is brief and likely to recur, preventing timely review. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that governmental entities cannot use this exception to preserve appeal rights when the complaining party lacks a basis for relief. HHA has not clarified if it is a governmental agency nor demonstrated an expectation of facing the same action again without appellate review, thus failing to meet this exception. The collateral-consequences exception can only be invoked under specific conditions, requiring the appellant to show a concrete disadvantage resulting from the judgment that persists even if the judgment is vacated. HHA has not demonstrated any concrete disadvantage or how such a disadvantage would continue if the judgment were vacated, leading to the conclusion that this exception does not apply. Ultimately, if the decision does not affect an ongoing controversy, the case is deemed moot. Consequently, HHA's issues are overruled, and the appeal and petition for writ of mandamus are dismissed as moot.