Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kennedy, 05-25-00557-CV, February 06, 2026.
On appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas
Synopsis
An appeal seeking the inclusion of foreclosure provisions and an award of costs is rendered moot when the underlying debt, including all penalties and associated costs, is fully satisfied by a third-party purchaser during the pendency of the appeal. Because the satisfaction of the underlying financial obligation leaves the appellate court with no live controversy to resolve, the court must vacate the challenged portion of the judgment and dismiss the appeal.
Relevance to Family Law
In Texas family law litigation, the “mootness by payment” doctrine serves as a critical junction between property enforcement and appellate finality. Whether a party is appealing the failure to include a “power of sale” in a decree or challenging the valuation of an owelty lien, the voluntary satisfaction of the underlying debt—often triggered by a post-divorce sale or a third-party refinancing—can instantly strip an appellate court of jurisdiction. Family law practitioners must recognize that obtaining the economic benefit of a judgment (the money) often precludes the legal pursuit of a specific enforcement mechanism (the foreclosure) on appeal.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Wylie Independent School District (Wylie ISD) initiated a lawsuit against Lacy Marie Schuiteman and Christopher Michael Conger to collect delinquent property taxes and to foreclose a tax lien on a specific parcel of real property. While the trial court awarded a money judgment for the delinquent taxes—totaling $19,665.99—it failed to include a provision in the judgment for the sale of the property to satisfy the lien, nor did it award certain costs sought by the school district. Wylie ISD perfected an appeal, specifically challenging the omission of the foreclosure remedy and the denial of costs. During the pendency of the appeal, the property owners sold the subject property to a third-party purchaser. This purchaser voluntarily paid all delinquent taxes, penalties, interest, and associated costs. Upon being ordered by the Court of Appeals to update the status of the case, Wylie ISD confirmed that the debt was satisfied and acknowledged that its complaints were now moot.
Issues Decided
The Court decided whether an appeal seeking additional enforcement remedies (foreclosure) and costs remains a live controversy after the underlying debt and costs have been paid in full by a third party.
Rules Applied
The Court applied the fundamental jurisdictional principle that an appellate court cannot decide a case that has become moot. It relied on Thomas v. Harris County, which establishes that the satisfaction of delinquent taxes renders a delinquency case moot. Procedurally, the Court applied the rule from Alsobrook v. MTGLQ Investors, LP, which dictates that when a case becomes moot on appeal, the appellate court should vacate the underlying judgment and dismiss the cause to prevent the trial court’s judgment from having preclusive effects.
Application
The Court’s analysis turned on the status of the “live controversy” between the taxing unit and the property owners. Wylie ISD’s appeal was predicated on the trial court’s failure to grant specific relief—namely, the foreclosure of the lien and the award of costs. However, the subsequent sale of the property changed the legal landscape. When the third-party purchaser satisfied the entirety of the tax debt, including interest and the very costs Wylie ISD sought on appeal, the injury the school district claimed to have suffered was redressed. The Court reasoned that because there was no longer any outstanding debt to collect, a judicial order providing for the “sale of the property” would be a nullity. The legal story ended when the money was received; the mechanism by which that money was supposed to be collected became an academic point that the Court lacked the power to address.
Holding
The Court held that the satisfaction of the underlying delinquent taxes, penalties, interest, and costs during the pendency of an appeal renders the appeal moot because there is no longer a live controversy for the court to resolve.
The Court further held that because the case became moot while on appeal, the appropriate disposition is to vacate the portion of the trial court’s judgment relating to the appellant and dismiss the appeal, rather than simply dismissing the appeal and leaving the underlying judgment intact.
Practical Application
For family law litigators, this case highlights a strategic “kill switch” for appeals involving property liens. If a client is appealing an unfavorable enforcement ruling or the denial of a foreclosure right, they must be cautioned that a sale of the property or a refinancing that pays off the lien may terminate their appellate rights. Conversely, if you represent a party who wishes to moot an opponent’s appeal regarding a property-related money judgment, facilitating a payoff (even by a third party) can effectively force a dismissal. This is particularly relevant in the context of owelty liens and the division of high-value real estate assets where the “acceptance of benefits” or “voluntary payment” can be weaponized to end litigation.
Checklists
Preserving Property Appeals Against Mootness
- File a Lis Pendens immediately to put third-party purchasers on notice of the pending appeal and claim.
- Seek to supersede the judgment under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 to prevent the transfer or sale of the property during the appeal.
- Advise clients that accepting a payoff check from a title company or third party may result in an immediate motion to dismiss the appeal.
Strategizing a Mootness Dismissal
- Identify if a third-party purchaser or lender is willing to satisfy the lien amount to clear title.
- Ensure that the payment specifically covers 100% of the requested relief, including interest and court costs, to leave the appellant with no “unredressed injury.”
- Promptly file a Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction once the payment is confirmed, citing the voluntary satisfaction of the debt.
- Request that the appellate court vacate the underlying judgment to ensure no collateral estoppel or res judicata issues remain.
Citation
Wylie Independent School District v. Lacy Marie Schuiteman and Christopher Michael Conger, No. 05-25-00557-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 6, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Click here for the full opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be weaponized in Texas divorce cases involving “deferred sale” orders or owelty liens. If a spouse is awarded a money judgment secured by a lien on the marital home and appeals because the court refused to include a “right to take possession” or “foreclosure” clause, the other spouse can moot that appeal by simply paying the judgment. In a high-conflict scenario, if the “paying spouse” can secure a bridge loan or a third-party buyer to satisfy the lien, they can effectively strip the “appealing spouse” of their day in court. This forces the appellant to choose between the cash and the legal principle; once they (or their lien) are paid, the Dallas Court of Appeals and other Texas courts will view the controversy as extinguished, regardless of whether the trial court committed an error in the original enforcement order.
~~5ad092f0-df1e-46c1-9b07-69a3bc961cdf~~
Share this content: