Oscar Harris and Eva Harris v. Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Docket 03-26-00210-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 03-26-00210-CV
Appeal from an eviction judgment and writ of possession issued by the County Court at Law No. 1 of Bell County
Summary
The court dismissed an eviction appeal as moot after the appellee (the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs) executed a writ of possession and obtained physical possession of the premises. The trial court had entered judgment for the appellee and set the statutorily required supersedeas bond amount under Texas law, but there is no indication the appellants posted a bond to stay possession. Because the appellee already recovered possession and the appellants did not respond to the appellee’s motion to dismiss, the appellate court concluded there was no live controversy and dismissed the appeal.
Issues Decided
- Whether the appeal is moot after appellee executed the writ of possession and obtained physical possession of the premises
- Whether lack of a supersedeas bond to stay possession affects the mootness of the appeal
Court's Reasoning
The court relied on the fact that the appellee executed the writ of possession and took physical control of the property, eliminating any effective relief the appellate court could provide. The trial court had set the statutory supersedeas bond amount under Texas Property Code § 24.007, but the record does not show the appellants posted that bond to stay execution. Because no live controversy remained and the appellants did not respond to the motion to dismiss, the appeal was properly dismissed as moot.
Authorities Cited
- Tex. Prop. Code § 24.007
- Wilder v. MWS Cap., LLCNo. 03-18-00195-CV, 2018 WL 6072263 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 21, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
Parties
- Appellant
- Oscar Harris
- Appellant
- Eva Harris
- Appellee
- Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
- Judge
- Paul A. Motz
- Judge
- Chari L. Kelly
Key Dates
- Appellate decision filed
- 2026-04-16
- Response deadline to motion to dismiss
- 2026-04-03
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult an attorney about post-judgment options
Speak with counsel promptly to determine whether a motion for rehearing, motion to reinstate the appeal, or other extraordinary relief is available based on the record or procedural issues.
- 2
Review supersedeas requirements
If considering future appeals in similar circumstances, confirm the amount and timing for posting a statutory supersedeas bond under Texas Property Code § 24.007 to stay writs of possession.
- 3
Assess eviction-related remedies
If the appellants believe the writ execution was improper, document facts and gather evidence to evaluate potential collateral challenges or relief in the trial court.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What does this decision mean?
- The appellate court dismissed the eviction appeal because the appellee already regained possession of the property, leaving no effective relief the court could provide.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The appellants (Oscar and Eva Harris) are affected because their appeal was dismissed; the appellee retains possession of the premises.
- What happens next for the parties?
- Because the appeal was dismissed as moot, the trial court’s possession judgment stands and the appellants no longer have relief from this appeal unless they pursue other procedural remedies.
- Could the appellants have avoided dismissal?
- Yes; posting the statutory supersedeas bond required by Texas law to stay execution of the writ of possession could have preserved possession during the appeal.
- Can this dismissal be appealed further?
- Further review is limited because the appeal was dismissed as moot; the appellants could inquire about rehearing or other extraordinary relief but recovery of possession is unlikely unless procedural defects are shown.
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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-26-00210-CV
Oscar Harris and Eva Harris, Appellants
v.
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Appellee
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY
NO. 26CCV00016, THE HONORABLE PAUL A. MOTZ, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal in an eviction suit. Appellee initiated the suit to recover
possession of the premises. The trial court rendered judgment in Appellee’s favor. The court in
its judgment provided for the issuance of a writ of possession of the premises and set a statutorily
required amount for the relevant supersedeas bond. See Tex. Prop. Code § 24.007. Nothing before
us indicates that the judgment of possession was ever superseded by the provision of the required
supersedeas bond. See id.
Appellee now moves for dismissal of this appeal as moot and represents that as a
result of execution on the writ of possession, Appellee obtained possession of the premises. We
asked for a response to Appellee’s motion to dismiss by April 3, 2026, but no response has
been filed.
For the reasons given by Appellee, this appeal is now moot. See Wilder v. MWS
Cap., LLC, No. 03-18-00195-CV, 2018 WL 6072263, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 21, 2018,
pet. denied) (mem. op.). We thus dismiss this appeal.
__________________________________________
Chari L. Kelly, Justice
Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Ellis
Dismissed as Moot
Filed: April 16, 2026
2