You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Douglas Crouse and April Marble v. Kenton Place Apartments

Citation: Not availableDocket: 04-22-00392-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; September 23, 2022; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, reviewed an appeal concerning a forcible detainer action involving Douglas Crouse and April Marble against Kenton Place Apartments. The trial court had previously awarded possession of the disputed property to Kenton Place Apartments, executing a writ of possession to affirm this decision. The appellants did not file a supersedeas bond, which would have suspended the trial court's judgment during the appeal process. As a result, the appellate court identified a potential mootness issue, as the appellants no longer possess the property, and the controversy may have been resolved. The court referenced relevant case law to support its consideration of mootness, emphasizing the necessity of a supersedeas bond or a valid claim to possession to keep the appeal alive. The appellate court ordered the appellants to submit a written explanation by a specified date, detailing reasons why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In the absence of such a response, the court indicated that the appeal would be dismissed, and all other appellate deadlines have been suspended pending this determination.

Legal Issues Addressed

Forcible Detainer and Possession Rights

Application: The trial court awarded possession of the property to the appellee, Kenton Place Apartments, and executed a writ of possession confirming their right to possession.

Reasoning: The trial court had awarded possession of the property to Kenton Place Apartments, and a writ of possession was executed, confirming that the appellee had taken possession.

Jurisdiction in Appellate Procedure

Application: The court requires the appellants to justify why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as there may be no current controversy to address.

Reasoning: The court ordered the appellants to provide a written explanation by October 24, 2022, detailing why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Mootness in Appeals

Application: The appeal may be rendered moot if the appellants have not filed a supersedeas bond and no longer possess the property, eliminating any existing controversy.

Reasoning: The appellate record does not indicate that the appellants filed a supersedeas bond to suspend the trial court's judgment. Consequently, the appeal may be rendered moot if the controversy between the parties no longer exists.

Requirement for a Supersedeas Bond

Application: The absence of a supersedeas bond indicates that the judgment was not suspended, impacting the appellants' ability to maintain possession during the appeal.

Reasoning: The appellate record does not indicate that the appellants filed a supersedeas bond to suspend the trial court's judgment.