Benson v. Fiesta Nissan, Inc.

• Docket Number: 13-20-00516-CV
• Decision Date: 28 August 2023
• Parties: SAMUEL E. BENSON III, Appellant, v. FIESTA NISSAN, INC., Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

1

SAMUEL E. BENSON III, Appellant,
v.
FIESTA NISSAN, INC., Appellee.

No. 13-20-00516-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg

August 28, 2023

On appeal from the 398th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Pena

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING

L. ARON PENA JR. JUSTICE

Appellant Samuel E. Benson III appeals a summary judgment in favor of appellee Fiesta Nissan, Inc. (Fiesta). In two issues, Benson argues: (1) the trial court's judgment is void; and (2) there is legally insufficient evidence supporting the award of attorney's

2

fees. Because Benson voluntarily satisfied the judgment without reserving the right to appeal, the appeal is moot. Therefore, we vacate the trial court's judgment and dismiss the appeal.^[1]

I. Background

Fiesta, a car dealership in Hidalgo County, Texas, sued Benson for breach of contract, breach of warranty of title, and fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. Fiesta alleged that Benson traded in three used vehicles as partial consideration for the purchase of a 2018 Nissan Frontier. However, Benson did not provide a title release for the vehicles. Fiesta sought damages and attorney's fees.

The trial court later granted Fiesta's traditional motion for summary judgment, awarding $7,000 in damages, $10,000 in attorney's fees, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and court costs. Five days after the judgment was signed, Benson delivered a check to Fiesta's attorney paying the judgment in full. Benson later filed several postjudgment motions assailing the final judgment, which the trial court denied. This appeal followed.

II. Mootness

We must first address Fiesta's mootness claim, because mootness is a threshold issue that implicates the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. 2005); Hughs v. Dikeman, 631 S.W.3d 362, 371 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.). Fiesta argues that this appeal is moot because Benson has voluntarily satisfied the judgment without reserving the right to appeal.

3

Benson responds that he expressed an intent to appeal the judgment through his postjudgment motions.

An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to issue an opinion on a moot controversy. See Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012). "A case becomes moot if . . . there has ceased to exist a justiciable controversy between the parties-that is,...