law-eviction | forcible entry and detainer FE&D | right to immediate possession of premises |
foreclosure | landlord-tenant lease disputes | commercial lease disputes, breach of lease cases | attorney's
fees in eviction cases |
District courts and county courts at law have jurisdiction to award possession of real property; they only lack
jurisdiction over forcible detainer suits applying the statutes and rules applicable to those suits. Id. at 3–4
(citing It’s the Berrys, 271 S.W.3d at 770); see also Breceda, 224 S.W.3d at 240.
FORCIBLE DETAINER (EVICTION)
The only issue in a forcible detainer action is the right to immediate possession of real property. Tex. R. Civ.
P. 746; Villalon v. Bank One, 176 S.W.3d 66, 70 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). To prevail, the
plaintiff is not required to prove title, but is only required to show sufficient evidence of ownership to
demonstrate a superior right to immediate possession. See, e.g., Aspenwood Apartment Corp. v. Coinmach,
Inc., No. 01-08-00636-CV, 2011 WL 478546, at *10 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 10, 2011, no pet. h.).
The existence of a landlord-tenant relationship provides a basis for the court to determine the right to
immediate possession without resolving the question of title. See Villalon, 176 S.W.3d at 71. When, however,
the right to possession depends upon the resolution of a question of title, neither the justice court nor the
county court has jurisdiction. Mitchell v. Armstrong Capital Corp., 911 S.W.2d 169, 171 (Tex. App.-Houston
[1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied).
An action for forcible detainer is cumulative of all other remedies a party may have in the courts of this State,
including a suit to try title. McGlothlin v. Kliebert, 672 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Tex. 1984) (citing Scott v. Hewitt, 90
S.W.2d 816, 818-19 (Tex. 1936)); Hong Kong Dev., Inc. v. Nguyen, 229 S.W.3d 415, 437 (Tex. App.-Houston
[1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). A forcible detainer action in justice court may be prosecuted concurrently with a title
dispute in district court. Hong Kong Dev., 229 S.W.3d at 437. Therefore, a suit to try title filed in another
court does not necessarily deprive the court in which a forcible detainer action was brought of jurisdiction.
See id.; Villalon, 176 S.W.3d at 70-71.
Because the plaintiff in a forcible detainer action is only required to demonstrate a superior right to
immediate possession, the county court can determine possession without quieting title if the deed
establishes a landlord-tenant relationship between the borrower and the purchaser of the property at the
foreclosure sale. See Villalon, 176 S.W.3d at 71; Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705, 712-13 (Tex. App.-Dallas
2001, no pet.).
The justice court has jurisdiction over forcible-detainer suits, but does not have jurisdiction over a suit for trial
of title to land. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 27.031(b)(4) (West Supp. 2010) (justice court has no
jurisdiction over suit for trial of title to land); TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.004 (West 2000) (justice court has
jurisdiction over forcible-detainer suits). In a forcible-detainer case, the only issue is the right to actual
possession, and the merits of the title cannot be adjudicated. TEX. R. CIV. P. 746. On trial de novo, the
statutory county court has the same jurisdiction as the justice court. See Terra XXI, Ltd. v. AG Acceptance
Corp., 280 S.W.3d 414, 417 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2008, pet. denied).
If it becomes apparent that a genuine issue regarding title exists in a forcible-detainer suit, the court does not
have jurisdiction over the matter. Mitchell v. Armstrong Capital Corp., 911 S.W.2d 169, 171 (Tex. App.-
Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied).
Title 24, section 247.4 of the Code of Federal Regulations sets forth certain lease termination notice
requirements applicable to Section 8 housing. Relevant here: “The landlord’s determination to terminate the
tenancy shall be in writing and shall . . . state the reasons for the landlord’s action with enough specificity so
as to enable the tenant to prepare a defense.” 24 C.F.R. § 247.4(a)(2). Unless new grounds for eviction
come to light after the termination notice is sent, the landlord is limited to reliance only “on grounds which
were set forth in the termination notice” in any judicial eviction proceeding. 24 C.F.R. § 247.6(b).
EVICTION APPEALS
Frank v. Brittany Square Apartments (pdf)(Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 15, 2009)(Hedges)
(eviction suit appeal, error in bringing appeal, incomplete appellate record, DWOJ on appeal)
In this forcible detainer suit, the tenant appealed the judgment of the justice court to the county court at law.
She asserts that the county court upheld the justice court’s judgment and granted possession of the
premises to the landlord, but she identifies no appealable order in the record. We therefore dismiss this
appeal for want of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED: Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Boyce
14-09-00288-CV Linda Frank v. Brittany Square Apartments
Appeal from County Court at Law #4 of Fort Bend County
Trial Court Judge: Sandy Bielstein
Simmons v. Hollyview Apartments (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Sep. 24, 2009)
(forcible entry and detainer, writ of possession) (eviction appeal, TRCP, Tex. R. Civ. P. 749b., attorney's fees
in eviction case)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Terry Jennings
Before Justices Jennings, Higley and Sharp
01-08-00231-CV Gregory Simmons v. Hollyview Apartments
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 2 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Lucci Smith
Schuring v. Kingwood Horsemen's Association (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jul. 23, 2009)(Bland)
(no jurisdiction over further appeal from eviction appeal to county court from JP court involving nonresidential
premises, here horse stall)
DISMISS APPEAL: Opinion by Justice Bland
Before Justices Keyes, Hanks and Bland
01-08-00760-CV Thomas G. Schuring, Rose Schuring v. Kingwood Horsemen's Association
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 2 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Lucci Smith
Cook v. Missionary Village Apartments (Tex.App.- Houston [ 1st Dist.] Dec. 19, 2008)(Nuchia)
(leases disputes, eviction appeal)
REVERSE TC JUDGMENT AND RENDER JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Nuchia
Before Justices Nuchia, Alcala and Hanks
01-07-00279-CV Damini Cook v. Missionary Village Apartments
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 1 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jack Cagle
Hines v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 9, 2008)(per curiam)
(appeal from commercial eviction possession order not authorized, DWOJ)
DISMISSED: Per Curiam
Before Justices Brock Yates, Seymore and Boyce
14-08-00707-CV Bernice H. Hines, d/b/a Krestmont Kiddie College v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,, Et Al.
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 4 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Roberta Anne Lloyd
Whitmire v. Greenridge Place Apartments (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 4, 2007)(Bland)
(lease law, forcible detainer)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Bland
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Alcala and Bland
01-06-00963-CV Michael Whitmire v. Greenridge Place Apartments
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 4 of Harris County (Hon. Roberta A. Lloyd)
Hong Kong Development Inc. v. Kim Loan Nguyen (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jun. 7, 2007)(Taft)
[commercial real estate, lease, forcible entry and detainer]
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT IN PART, REVERSE TC JUDGMENT IN PART, AND REMAND CASE TO TC FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS: Opinion by Justice Taft
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Taft and Nuchia
01-04-00586-CV Hong Kong Development, Inc., Hai Du Duong, and Phuong Truong Tu v. Kim Loan Nguyen
d/b/a Alpha Baker
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 1 of Harris County (Hon. Jack Cagle)
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE