Christine E. Reule v. RLZ Investments
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 9877
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- RLZ Investments sued Christine Reule in a Harris County court at law for forcible detainer after RLZ allegedly acquired Reule's residence at a foreclosure sale.
- The county court entered a final judgment on November 14, 2011, awarding RLZ immediate possession of the premises.
- RLZ never physically took possession. During the pendency of this appeal, RLZ filed documents with the court expressly releasing Reule from the judgment and waiving any right to enforce it "until the end of time."
- Reule argued the county-court-at-law action was barred by a Harris County district court protective order while a separate suit to determine title remained pending in district court.
- The Fourteenth Court of Appeals considered whether the appeal remained justiciable given RLZ's release and whether any mootness exceptions applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a live controversy exists to sustain the appeal | Reule: trial court erred in proceeding while district-court protective order and title suit were pending | RLZ: released and waived enforcement of judgment; no controversy remains | The appeal is moot because RLZ released and waived enforcement, so no live controversy exists |
| Whether the court should vacate prior judgment if appeal is moot | Reule: seeks relief reversing county-court judgment | RLZ: contends mootness makes the appeal nonjusticiable; urges dismissal | Court vacated the trial court's judgment and dismissed the case as moot |
| Whether the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception applies | Reule: did not assert this exception | RLZ: argued exception inapplicable | Exception inapplicable—issue not inherently short in duration and Reule made no showing |
| Whether the "collateral consequences" exception applies | Reule: alleged reputational and credit harm from judgment | RLZ: argued any such consequences would not persist once judgment vacated | Exception inapplicable—Reule failed to show the consequences would persist after vacatur |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2001) (standing requires a live controversy throughout proceedings)
- Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Nueces County, 886 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1994) (courts limited to actual controversies)
- Speer v. Presbyterian Children’s Home & Serv. Agency, 847 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. 1993) (when appeal is moot prior orders and judgments must be set aside)
- Marshall v. Housing Authority of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. 2006) (collateral-consequences exception requires enduring disadvantage after vacatur)
- Tierra Sol Joint Venture v. City of El Paso, 311 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009) (release by appellee can render issues moot and warrant dismissal)
- State v. Lodge, 608 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. 1980) (recognizing exceptions to mootness doctrine)