LAW.coLAW.co

Betsy Burnett v. Yamasa Co Ltd

2026-08-27

Authorities cited

Opinion

majority opinion

Opinion issued August 27, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-26-00416-CV

BETSY BURNETT, Appellant

V.

YAMASA CO LTD, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1273899

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal arises from a forcible detainer action brought by appellee Yamasa

Co Ltd against appellant Betsy Burnett. Appellant appealed the Justice Court’s

judgment to the County Court, which subsequently rendered a Final Judgment

(“judgment”) in favor of appellee awarding appellee possession of the subject property (“Property”) as well as damages and attorney’s fees. Appellant, proceeding

pro se, then appealed the County Court’s judgment to this Court.

As a threshold matter, we must consider whether the issue of possession has

become moot and thus whether we have subject-matter jurisdiction over this appeal.

Strange v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr. for Registered Holders of Long Beach

Mortg. Loan Tr. 2004-4, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-4, No. 01-23-00575-CV, 2024 WL 1862860, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 30, 2024,

no pet.) (mem. op.) (appellate courts “lack subject matter jurisdiction to decide a

moot controversy”). After eviction, an appeal from a forcible entry and detainer

action becomes moot. Id. at *2, 5 (holding after eviction, appeal was moot and

dismissal warranted because appellate court lacked jurisdiction); De La Garza v.

Riverstone Apartments, No. 04-06-00732-CV, 2007 WL 3270769, at *1 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio Nov. 7, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same) (citing Marshall v.

Hous. Auth. of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2006)).

The record reflects that appellant is no longer in possession of the Property.

The clerk’s record indicates that the writ of possession was executed on April 28,

2026, during which time “it was discovered that [appellant] had already vacated the

premises.” See Holloway v. Revelstoke Venture, LLC, No. 02-23-00375-CV, 2024

WL 191221, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 18, 2024, pet. denied) (mem. op.)

2

(dismissing appeal as moot where appellant no longer in possession of property and

did not raise meritorious claim of right to possession).

An evicted appellant may still pursue an appeal, however, if she advances “a

potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property.”

Strange, 2024 WL 1862860, at *4; see also Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787. Appellant

has not proffered any right to possession of the Property. On July 28, 2026, we

informed appellant that her appeal could be dismissed if she did not, within ten days

of our notice, file a response addressing whether the appeal should be dismissed as

moot. Appellant has not filed a response.

Because the issue of actual possession is moot and appellant has not raised

any potentially meritorious claim, we must dismiss the appeal and vacate the trial

court’s judgment as to possession. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 785 (holding that

when appeal of forcible detainer action becomes moot, proper course is to dismiss

appeal and vacate lower court’s judgment of possession).

Although the issue of possession is moot, the trial court also awarded appellee

damages and attorney’s fees. A dispute over attorney’s fees is a live controversy that

may prevent an entire case from becoming moot. See Daftary v. Prestonwood Mkt.

Square, Ltd., 399 S.W.3d 708, 711–12 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, pet. denied)

(holding that even though issue of possession became moot when appellant vacated

3

property, “entire case was not moot because [appellant’s] claims for damages and

attorney’s fees continued to present live controversies”).

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),

(c), 43.2(f). Because the issue of possession is moot, we also vacate the trial court’s

judgment in part as to the issue of possession.1 We dismiss any pending motions as

moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Morgan.

1

The remainder of the judgment including the award of damages and attorney’s fees

shall remain in place.

4