The Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth recently weighed in on a case involving a tenant, Talek Sherman, and his landlord, Hillcrest Apartments. The court’s decision highlights the complexities of appeals in eviction cases, particularly when the tenant has already been removed from the property.
The Basics of the Case
Sherman, acting without a lawyer (pro se), appealed a county court’s decision in a “forcible-detainer” action. This type of lawsuit is specifically about who has the right to possess a property. The county court had ruled in favor of Hillcrest Apartments, granting them possession of the apartment and awarding them attorney’s fees.
Eviction and Mootness: What Happens When the Tenant is Gone?
The core issue in this appeal was whether the case was still relevant, or “moot,” since Sherman had already been evicted. The court explained that in a forcible-detainer case, an appeal usually becomes moot once the tenant is no longer on the property. The only question in these cases is who has the right to be there. Since Sherman was no longer living in the apartment, the question of possession was, in the court’s view, no longer an active issue.
However, there’s an exception to this rule. An appeal isn’t moot if there are other issues at stake, such as a claim for damages or, as in this case, attorney’s fees.
Why the Possession Issue Was Dismissed
The court decided the issue of possession was moot for two main reasons:
* Sherman’s Eviction: Sherman admitted he had been evicted.
* Lease Expiration: Even if the eviction hadn’t happened, the lease was set to expire in April 2025. Sherman didn’t present any arguments for why he should be allowed to stay after the lease ended.
Because the possession issue was moot, the court vacated the part of the lower court’s judgment that granted possession to Hillcrest Apartments. This means the court’s order regarding who had the right to the apartment was essentially wiped away.
Attorney’s Fees and Other Issues: A Mixed Bag for Sherman
Even though the possession issue was gone, the court addressed the other parts of the county court’s decision. Specifically, Hillcrest had been awarded attorney’s fees. Because Sherman didn’t challenge the attorney’s fees award in his appeal, the appellate court affirmed that part of the judgment.
Sherman also raised several other issues in his appeal that weren’t directly related to the right to possess the apartment. These included claims about a temporary restraining order, alleged violations of Sherman’s civil rights and federal laws (like the Americans with Disabilities Act), and Hillcrest’s attempt to have him declared a “vexatious litigant” (someone who repeatedly files frivolous lawsuits).
The court rejected these arguments, primarily because Sherman hadn’t raised them in the county court in the first place. Under Texas law, if you don’t bring up an issue in the lower court, you generally can’t raise it for the first time on appeal. Also, the court noted that Sherman’s briefing was not sufficient: he failed to provide proper legal arguments, supporting evidence, or citations to the court record to back up his claims.
The Outcome
In the end, the court’s decision was a mixed bag for Sherman. While the part of the judgment that granted possession to Hillcrest was vacated (essentially reversed), the award of attorney’s fees was upheld. The court also dismissed Sherman’s other complaints because they were not properly raised and supported.