441 S.W.3d 709
Tex. App.2014Background
- Wells Fargo purchased 641 Milton Henry Ave. at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale in July 2011, then demanded possession and sued for forcible detainer.
- Appellants Alicia and Ernesto Gonzalez answered and filed a plea in abatement, asserting a collateral district-court wrongful-foreclosure/title suit.
- After the justice court granted a writ to Wells Fargo, the case was appealed to County Court at Law No. 5 for a trial de novo.
- Before the de novo trial, the parties entered a Rule 11 settlement (Agreed Order) that incorporated an attached Agreed Judgment: it allowed the Gonzalezes to remain in possession subject to conditions and made possession conditional on events (e.g., default or a date).
- The Gonzalezes defaulted under the Agreed Order; the county court signed the Agreed Judgment and granted a writ of possession to Wells Fargo.
- The Gonzalezes appealed, arguing (1) lack of jurisdiction because a district-court title suit was pending and (2) the Agreed Judgment was not a valid consent judgment because they did not consent on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gonzalez) | Defendant's Argument (Wells Fargo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether county court lacked jurisdiction to enter writ because a collateral title suit was pending | Pending district-court title action divests justice/county court jurisdiction; no landlord-tenant relationship shown | Justice/county courts retain forcible-detainer jurisdiction unless resolution of possession necessarily requires resolving title; Agreed Order created a landlord/tenant-at-sufferance relationship allowing possession decision | Court held jurisdiction proper: no genuine title issue requiring resolution, and Agreed Order created landlord-tenant type relationship permitting forcible-detainer adjudication |
| 2. Whether the Agreed Judgment was invalid for lack of consent | Judgment invalid because record lacks Appellants’ signature/affirmative consent to the Agreed Judgment | Parties signed the overarching Agreed Order which incorporated the Agreed Judgment; Gonzalezes failed to withdraw consent before rendition, so judgment is binding | Court held the Agreed Judgment valid by consent through the Agreed Order; Appellants waived sufficiency challenges by consenting and not withdrawing consent |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson v. Dynegy Midstream Servs., L.P., 138 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (standard of review for subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) (limited-jurisdiction courts must establish authority at outset)
- Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001) (justice and county courts may decide possession separate from title unless title resolution is necessary)
- Chisholm v. Chisholm, 209 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. 2006) (consent judgment must reflect actual consent and strict compliance with agreement)
- Bruce v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 352 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (mere existence of title dispute does not automatically deprive forcible-detainer court of jurisdiction)