Andrew Spence and Cassie Alexander v. Georgia E. Hersom
Docket 10-24-00181-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 10-24-00181-CV
Appeal from a de novo county court at law judgment in an eviction proceeding following an appeal from justice court
Summary
The Court of Appeals dismissed an eviction appeal as moot after the appellants informed the court they no longer occupy the disputed property and do not oppose dismissal. The court noted that eviction proceedings in justice and county courts focus solely on the right to actual possession under Texas law and the civil rules. Because the appellants vacated the premises, the court vacated the county court judgment, dismissed the appeal and all pending motions, and provided no further relief on possession or related claims.
Issues Decided
- Whether the appeal in an eviction action is moot when the appellants no longer possess the property
- Whether vacatur of the trial court's judgment is appropriate when the case is rendered moot by loss of possession
Court's Reasoning
Texas law and rules governing eviction actions limit the issue to the right to actual possession. The appellants told the court they no longer occupy the premises and do not oppose dismissal, removing the sole justiciable issue. Because there is no live controversy over possession, the court concluded the appeal was moot and vacated and dismissed the proceedings and pending motions.
Authorities Cited
- Texas Property Code § 24.004(a)TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.004(a)
- Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 510.3TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.3(e)
Parties
- Appellants
- Andrew Spence
- Appellants
- Cassie Alexander
- Appellee
- Georgia E. Hersom
- Judge
- F. Steven McClure
- Judge
- Chief Justice Matt Johnson
Key Dates
- Opinion filed
- 2026-04-23
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult counsel about other claims
If either party has claims beyond possession (for example, damages or contract disputes), they should consult a lawyer about filing a separate suit in a court with proper jurisdiction.
- 2
Confirm record and enforcement status
The property owner should confirm the vacatur clears any enforcement action and update records to reflect the appeal's dismissal.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What does this decision mean?
- The appeals court dismissed the eviction appeal because the tenants no longer occupied the property, so there is no longer a dispute over possession for the court to decide.
- Who is affected by this ruling?
- The appellants (tenants) and the appellee (property owner) are affected; the county court judgment was vacated and the appeal and pending motions were dismissed.
- What happens next for the parties?
- Because the court dismissed the appeal as moot, there is no further relief from this appeal; parties may pursue other legal claims in separate proceedings if appropriate.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- The opinion does not address further appeal, but dismissal for mootness typically ends the appellate process unless a party can show a viable basis for relief or an issue of broad public importance.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-24-00181-CV
Andrew Spence and Cassie Alexander,
Appellants
v.
Georgia E. Hersom,
Appellee
On appeal from the
County Court at Law No. 2 of Johnson County, Texas
Judge F. Steven McClure, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. CC-C20230567
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Andrew Spence and Cassie Alexander appealed from a de novo judgment
from the county court at law in an eviction proceeding. The Appellants had
appealed an adverse decision from the justice court to the county court at law.
Upon request by the Clerk of this Court as to whether or not Appellants were
still in possession of the property in question, Appellants have informed this
Court that they are no longer in possession of the property, do not dispute that
this appeal is moot, and “do not oppose dismissal of the appeal on that basis.”
Chapter 24 of the Texas Property Code grants justice courts "jurisdiction
in eviction suits," including suits for forcible entry and detainer and forcible
detainer. TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.004(a). Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
510.3, which governs eviction cases, identifies "the right to actual possession"
as the "[o]nly [i]ssue" in an eviction case and specifies that claims "not asserted
because of this rule can be brought in a separate suit in a court of proper
jurisdiction." TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.3(e).
Accordingly, because Appellants are no longer in possession of the
premises in question, we vacate the trial court's judgment and dismiss the case
as moot. Appellants’ pending motions are also dismissed as moot.
MATT JOHNSON
Chief Justice
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: April 23, 2026
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Appeal dismissed;
Judgment vacated;
Motions dismissed
CV06
Spence v. Hersom Page 2