Full Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-26-00598-CV ___________________________ RONALD FURTICK, ECCLESIASTICAL EQUITY, LP, AND 1500 TURBEVILLE ROAD, HICKORY CREEK, TEXAS 75065, IN REM, Appellants V. TOWN OF HICKORY CREEK, TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. CV-2026-02492 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants Ronald Furtick; Ecclesiastical Equity, LP; and 1500 Turbeville Road, Hickory Creek, Texas 75065, In Rem timely appealed the trial court’s interlocutory order granting a temporary injunction.1 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4). After Appellants filed their notice of appeal, the trial court signed an amended order granting a temporary injunction. See Tex. R. App. P. 29.5 (providing that, while an interlocutory appeal is pending, the trial court retains jurisdiction and may make further orders, including one dissolving the order complained of on appeal). The amended order expressly states that it “supersedes and replaces the [trial c]ourt’s prior Order Granting Temporary Injunction dated August 25, 2026.” “Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies.” Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). A case becomes moot when a justiciable controversy ceases to exist at any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal. In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding); Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). Appellee Town of Hickory Creek, Texas filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal, arguing that the amended order superseded the order at issue and that no Appellants also filed an “emergency motion for temporary relief or stay 1 pending accelerated interlocutory appeal.” 2 continuing controversy remains concerning the original order.2 Appellee further represents that Appellants do not oppose the requested dismissal. Appellants have not responded to the motion or otherwise identified any continuing controversy that would permit this court to grant relief concerning the superseded order. Appellants have since filed a separate notice of appeal from the amended order. Because the amended order expressly supersedes and replaces the order at issue in this appeal, and Appellants have identified no remaining controversy concerning that order, we conclude that this appeal is moot. Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal as moot.3 See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Fanning v. Place, No. 04-09-00490-CV, 2009 WL 4982447, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 23, 2009, no pet.) (dismissing appeal as moot after trial court signed an amended temporary injunction superseding the order on appeal). /s/ Brian Walker Brian Walker Justice Delivered: November 5, 2026 2 Appellee notes that the amended order contains its own findings, operative restraints, affirmative relief, bond determination, and trial setting for April 6, 2027. 3 We deny all other pending motions. 3