Joseph Haas v. Environmental US Resources, LLC

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00187-CV

JOSEPH HAAS,
Appellant
v.

ENVIRONMENTAL US RESOURCES, LLC,
Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 1
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. 24-C-3178

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joseph Haas appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding immediate possession of

real property that was the subject of a lease, hereinafter “the premises,” to appellee,

Environmental US Resources, LLC, and ordering a writ of possession regarding the

premises. The writ of possession set the amount of a supersedeas bond at $20,000.

Based on documents filed by Haas, it appears to the Court that the premises were

used for some type of motor repair business. There has been no allegation that the

premises were used for residential purposes. Consequently, by letter dated June 25, 2024,
the Clerk of this Court notified Haas that this appeal was subject to dismissal because this

Court has no jurisdiction of an appeal from a final judgment of a county court in an

eviction suit on the issue of possession unless the premises in question are being used for

residential purposes only. TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.007. In the same letter, the Clerk warned

Haas that this appeal would be dismissed unless, within 10 days from the date of the

letter, Haas filed a response with the Court showing grounds for continuing the appeal.

Haas filed a response, but does not address our jurisdiction. Instead, Haas

requests that we issue a writ of replevin against Environmental US Resources for the

return of Haas’s property. We cannot. Replevin is an "action for the repossession of

personal property wrongfully taken or detained by the defendant, whereby the plaintiff

gives security for and holds the property until the court decides who owns it." Simmonds

v. TDCJ, No. 10-07-00361-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 1338, at *28-29 (Tex. App.—Waco

Feb. 24, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.). We may issue writs when necessary to enforce our

jurisdiction, see TEX. GOV'T CODE § 22.221, and a writ of replevin is not necessary to

enforce our jurisdiction.

Accordingly, because Haas does not explain why we would have jurisdiction of

his appeal, his appeal is dismissed. 1

TOM GRAY
Chief Justice

1
Further, Haas presented this Court with a statement of inability to afford payment of costs on appeal. It
was not opposed. Thus, Haas is entitled to proceed without the payment of appellate costs. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 20.1(c).

Haas v. Environ. US Res., LLC Page 2
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed July 18, 2024
[CV06]

Haas v. Environ. US Res., LLC Page 3