Antonio Ruiz, Martha Ruiz, and All Occupants of 11207 Bayou Place Lane, Houston, Texas, 77099 v. Invum Three, LLC, 14-19-00516-CV

Background

Invum Three, LLC purchased 11207 Bayou Place at a foreclosure sale on February 5, 2019, and mailed a notice to vacate on March 21, 2019.
Invum filed a forcible-detainer (eviction) action in justice court on March 28, 2019; the justice court awarded possession to Invum.
Appellants (Antonio and Martha Ruiz and other occupants) appealed to the county court and filed a plea to the jurisdiction claiming wrongful/nonjudicial foreclosure and lack of notice.
At the county-court de novo trial Invum introduced a substitute trustee’s deed, the deed of trust, and the notice to vacate; appellants did not object to those exhibits.
The deed of trust contains a tenant-at-sufferance clause converting holdover occupants into tenants at sufferance after foreclosure.
The county court entered judgment for possession in favor of Invum; on appeal the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting appellants’ jurisdictional and title-based challenges.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to decide the forcible-detainer action	Invum: justice and county courts have jurisdiction to decide immediate possession; Invum provided sufficient proof of superior right to possession	Appellants: jurisdiction lacking because resolution requires adjudication of wrongful/nonjudicial foreclosure and title issues reserved for district courts	Held: Court affirmed jurisdiction; forcible-detainer action decides possession, not title, unless title resolution is necessary to decide possession (not the case here).
Whether Invum proved a landlord-tenant relationship (tenant at sufferance)	Invum: deed of trust contains a tenant-at-sufferance clause that makes foreclosed borrowers tenants at sufferance	Appellants: deed lacks a tenancy-at-sufferance clause and thus Invum failed to establish landlord-tenant status	Held: Court held the deed contains a tenant-at-sufferance clause; appellants were tenants at sufferance.
Whether alleged defects in the foreclosure (e.g., no notice) deprive justice/county courts of jurisdiction	Invum: defects in foreclosure are irrelevant to possession where a tenant-at-sufferance clause exists and proper notice to vacate was given	Appellants: foreclosure was flawed (lack of §51.002 notice, accounting), so title dispute is intertwined with possession and deprives lower courts of jurisdiction	Held: Court rejected this; the tenant-at-sufferance clause separates possession from title, so alleged foreclosure defects do not deprive the justice/county courts of jurisdiction over possession.

Key Cases Cited

Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 400 (Tex. 1993) (subject-matter jurisdiction is essential and reviewed de novo)
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for reviewing jurisdictional questions)
Tellez v. Rodriguez, 612 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.) (forcible-detainer limits and appeal to county court de novo)
Shields Ltd. P’ship v. Bradberry, 526 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. 2017) (elements needed to prevail in forcible-detainer action)
Yarbrough v. Household Fin. Corp. III, 455 S.W.3d 277 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (tenant-at-sufferance clause separates possession from title challenges)
Pinnacle Premier Props., Inc. v. Breton, 447 S.W.3d 558 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (foreclosure purchaser’s possession claim not defeated by defects in foreclosure where tenant-at-sufferance clause exists)
Salaymeh v. Plaza Centro, LLC, 264 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (justice court not deprived of jurisdiction merely because title dispute exists)
Doggett v. Nitschke, 498 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. 1973) (justice court lacks authority to adjudicate title)
USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. 2018) (error in judgment regarding parties/relief must be raised to avoid forfeiture)