Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Kenneth J. THOMAS, Appellant
ARRIBA APARTMENTS, Appellee
the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas Trial
Court No. 2018CV04988 Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Rebeca C.
Martinez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
BRYAN MARION, CHIEF JUSTICE.
IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
J. Thomas appeals the county court's judgment in a
forcible detainer action granting Arriba Apartments a writ of
possession for the premises described as 5200 Blanco Road,
Apt. #824, San Antonio, Texas ("Premises"), and
awarding Arriba Apartments $2, 700.00 in unpaid rent and $1,
250.00 in attorney's fees. We vacate in part and affirm
Apartments filed a forcible detainer action in justice court
seeking to evict Thomas from the Premises. Thomas appealed
the justice court's judgment to county court.
August 29, 2018, the county court signed an order setting the
cause for trial on September 13, 2018. On September 10, 2018,
Thomas filed a motion for continuance. The motion contains a
"notice of hearing" stating the motion was set for
hearing on September 27, 2018. The appellate record does not
contain an order ruling on the motion for continuance.
September 13, 2018, the date the cause was set for trial, the
county court signed a judgment. The judgment recites that
Thomas failed to appear. As previously noted, the judgment
granted Arriba Apartments a writ of possession for the
Premises, and also awarded Arriba Apartments $2, 700.00 in
unpaid rent and $1, 250.00 in attorney's fees. Thomas
the writ of possession issued by the trial court was executed
on the premises causing Thomas to vacate the premises, the
issue of possession is moot. As a result, we vacate the trial
court's judgment of possession. See Marshall v. Hous.
Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 785 (Tex.
2006); Cavazos v. San Antonio Hous. Auth., No.
04-09-00659-CV, 2010 WL 2772450, at *2 (Tex. App.-San Antonio
July 14, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.).
the issue of possession is moot, issues independent of
possession are still reviewable on appeal."
Cavazos, 2010 WL 2772450, at *2. As this court noted
in our March 27, 2019 order, however, appellant's
original brief was stricken because it failed to comply with
the briefing rules in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Although appellant's amended brief was not stricken, this
court's order noted the amended brief did not correct all
the deficiencies in the original brief and advised Thomas
that this court might ultimately conclude he waived his
appellate complaints due to inadequate briefing.
the statements made in Thomas's brief relate to the issue
of possession which we have held is moot. The remaining
statements do not present issues setting out errors allegedly
committed by the county court, and the brief does not provide
relevant citations to the record or cite relevant authority.
Accordingly, the brief does not present any issues for our
review. See Cammack v. Bank of New York Mellon,
04-18-00277-CV, 2019 WL 1547576, at *3 (Tex. App.- San
Antonio Apr. 10, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("Where, as
here, an appellant fails to cite relevant authority, provide
relevant citations to the record, or provide substantive
analysis of an issue raised in the brief, nothing is
presented for our review."). For example, although the
brief alludes to the county court overlooking Thomas's
motion for continuance, in order to complain on appeal
regarding a ruling on a motion for continuance, "the
record must show that the motion was brought to the trial
court's attention and that the trial court either denied
the motion or refused to rule on the motion and the
complaining party objected to the refusal." Quintana
v. CrossFit Dallas, L.L.C., 347 S.W.3d 445, 449 (Tex.
App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.). The record in this case does not
contain any such showing and, in fact, shows that the motion
for continuance was set for a hearing two weeks after the
trial setting. In addition, Thomas attached documents to his
brief that are not part of the appellate record and cannot be
considered by this court. See Kemp v. Santander Consumer
USA Inc., No. 04-17-00622-CV, ...