Full Opinion

Opinion issued July 14, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-26-00399-CV ——————————— ANNIKA ROYSTON, Appellant V. HHA-OXFORD PLACE, Appellee On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1272209 MEMORANDUM OPINION The only issue in a forcible-detainer action is the right to actual possession of the subject property and “the merits of title shall not be adjudicated.” Wilhelm v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 349 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). A forcible-detainer appeal therefore becomes moot if the appellant is no longer in possession of the property, unless the appellant holds and asserts “a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession” of the property. Marshall v. Housing Auth. of the City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 786–87 (Tex. 2006). The record contains an executed and returned writ of possession indicating that appellants no longer possess the disputed property. This Court issued a letter informing appellants that the record indicated that the appeal is moot because appellee now has possession of the subject property. We requested that appellants file a response to whether the appeal was moot. Appellants did not respond, and therefore, have failed to assert a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property. See Soza v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 01-11-00568-CV, 2013 WL 3148616, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 18, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case as moot. See Bey v. ASD Fin., Inc., No. 05-14-00534-CV, 2014 WL 4180933, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 11, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of forcible detainer action as moot because appellant no longer possessed property at issue); TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Morgan. 2