John M. Stevenson v. Housing Authority of the City of Austin (HACA)
385 S.W.3d 684
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Stevenson leased a public housing apartment owned by HACA in Oct 2005 in Austin, Texas.
- On Nov 12, 2008, Stevenson’s lease was terminated for failing to pay rent; he was told to vacate by Dec 4, 2008.
- Stevenson did not vacate; HACA filed forcible detainer in Justice Court; jury verdict favored HACA.
- Stevenson appealed for a de novo trial in county court and filed a pauper’s affidavit; HACA moved for writ of possession in 2009.
- The case was removed to federal court, then remanded; county court ordered possession and eviction in 2009; writ issued May 6, 2009; de novo trial dismissed as moot in Mar 2010.
- Stevenson appeals the dismissal; issues focus on mootness, possession, and due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the de novo trial moot? | Stevenson contends not moot due to claimed possession rights. | HACA argues lease expired; possession no longer exists, so moot. | Moot; lease expired and no current right to possession. |
| Are issues independent of possession reviewable on appeal? | Stevenson asserts relief on possession-related issues should be reviewable. | Because possession is moot, such issues lack jurisdiction. | Lacked jurisdiction to review possession-related issues. |
| Are the justice court’s meritorious-judgment and due-process arguments preserved after de novo trial? | Stevenson claimed the justice court judgment was invalid and due-process flaws occurred. | Issues were mooted by the county court’s de novo trial. | Issues overruled as moot by de novo trial. |
| Was due process violated by the justice court’s proceedings? | Stevenson alleged due-process defects in the lower proceeding. | De novo trial renders these arguments moot. | Overruled; moot due to de novo trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Housing Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. 2006) (mootness depends on potentially meritorious possession claim)
- In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (mootness doctrine; controversy must exist)
- Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83 (Tex. 1999) (definition of mootness and justiciability)
- Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001) (when possession is moot, other issues may be reviewed)
- Academy Corp. v. Sunwest N.O.P., Inc., 853 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) (landlord-tenant relationship element not reviewable when possession at issue)
- A.V.A. Servs. v. Parts Indus. Corp., 949 S.W.2d 852 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1997) (review limits when possession is the critical issue)