Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 08-16-2022
Case Style:
Natalie Ann Stroik v. David Lee Stroik
Case Number: 02-21-00207-CV
Judge: Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
Court:
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
On appeal from 367th District Court
Denton County, Texas
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Thomas M. Michel
Robley Sicard
Lauren M. Lockett
Defendant's Attorney:
Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.
Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement
Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge
Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800
Description:
Fort Worth, Texas – Divorce lawyer represented Appellee with petitioning to enforce an agreed divorce decree
The parties entered into an agreed divorce decree, and Appellee David Lee
Stroik later petitioned to enforce the decree. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.001(a). In
June 2021, the trial court rendered an order that granted a temporary injunction and
clarified certain terms of the parties’ divorce decree (the June Order). In the June
Order, the trial court enjoined the parties from selling the marital residence at issue,
unless the parties mutually agreed in writing or until further order of the trial court.
The clarifications related to the appraisal of the home either in preparation of, or in
lieu of, its sale. Appellant Natalie Ann Stroik filed this interlocutory appeal to
challenge the June Order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4).
While the appeal was pending, the trial court entered an order appointing a
receiver to take charge and possession of the marital residence.1 The receiver
subsequently sold the marital residence, and the trial court entered an agreed Order
Approving Sale by Receiver on April 5, 2022, and an agreed Order Confirming Sale of
Real Property, Approving Final Account, Reimbursement of Bond to Receiver, and
Discharging Receiver on June 21, 2022.
A controversy must exist between the parties at every stage of the legal
proceeding, including the appeal; if a controversy ceases to exist, the case becomes
moot. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig.
1
The Order on Motion for Appointment of Receiver was the subject of a
separate appeal before this court, that has been dismissed. See Stroik v. Stroik, No. 02-
22-00060-CV, 2022 WL 2979172 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 28, 2022, no pet. h.).
3
proceeding); Bd. of Adjustment of San Antonio v. Wende, 92 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Tex. 2002);
see also Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure Fund,
LLC, 619 S.W.3d 628, 634–35 (Tex. 2021) (holding that a case becomes moot when
(1) a justiciable controversy no longer exists between the parties, (2) the parties no
longer have a legally cognizable interest in the case’s outcome, (3) the court can no
longer grant the requested relief or otherwise affect the parties’ rights or interests, or
(4) any decision would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion). Courts must
dismiss moot cases for want of jurisdiction. See Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369
S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012).
This appeal is moot because the marital residence that is the subject of the June
Order has been sold. Specifically, the controversy between the parties regarding the
conditions of appraisal or sale of the home ceased to exist when the trial court entered
the agreed orders approving the sale of the marital residence and the deposit of sale
proceeds into the court registry.
Outcome: Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: