Aspenwood Apartment Corp. v. Coinmach, Inc.
349 S.W.3d 621
Tex. App.2011Background
- Coinmach leased laundry rooms to Garden View / Aspenwood in 1980; lease included exclusive operation and rent contingent on gross receipts.
- Foreclosure in January 1994 terminated the original lease; Aspenwood and Coinmach disputed occupancy thereafter.
- Aspenwood ordered Coinmach to vacate; Coinmach refused and a writ of re-entry was sought; forcible detainer actions followed.
- Aspenwood purchased the property in April 1994; Coinmach continued occupancy, but there was no documented consent to a new lease.
- Between 1994 and 2000 Coinmach remained in possession; Aspenwood sued in 1998 for trespass, title, DTPA, and contract claims.
- Trial court held Coinmach was a tenant at sufferance; on rehearing, court clarified possessory rights and ultimately remanded certain tort, title, and declaratory judgment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lease breach despite holdover status | Aspenwood contends holdover bound by original lease terms. | Coinmach argues foreclosure terminated lease; holdover lacks contractual entitlement. | The court held no binding lease after foreclosure; holdover did not create breach liability. |
| Trespass / trespass to title after holdover | Aspenwood maintains title and possessory interests require district court adjudication. | Coinmach asserts no title dispute; possession under prior regime continues. | Remanded; title/possession intertwined; district court must adjudicate title to resolve possession. |
| Tortious interference with prospective contract | Coinmach's continued occupancy interfered with Aspenwood's ability to lease space. | As tenant at sufferance, Coinmach lacked interference predicate. | Tortious interference claim survives continuing tort analysis; tolling debated; remand for fact-finding. |
| DTPA consumer status | Aspenwood seeks consumer status for DTPA claims. | Aspenwood did not purchase goods/services from Coinmach; not a consumer. | Aspenwood not a DTPA consumer; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Declaratory Judgment Act viability | Aspenwood seeks declarations on rights and duties. | Claims improper or moot after holdover determinations. | Declaratory judgment claims dismissed as improper; holding reversed on related topics and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barragan v. Munoz, 525 S.W.2d 559 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1975) (holdover covenants binding; tenancy concepts)
- Bockelmann v. Marynick, 788 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. 1990) (holdover; landlord may treat as trespasser or tenant)
- ICM Mortgage Corp. v. Jacob, 902 S.W.2d 527 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1994) (foreclosure terminates lease; possible holdover/landlord-tenant dynamics)
- Twelve Oaks Tower I, Ltd. v. Premier Allergy, Inc., 938 S.W.2d 102 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996) (post-foreclosure relationship; implied terms may arise)
- Merit Mgmt. Partners, I, L.P. v. Noelke, 266 S.W.3d 637 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008) (title questions; leasehold constitutes real property interest)
- Hong Kong Dev. Inc. v. Nguyen, 229 S.W.3d 415 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (forcible detainer; possession vs. title; jurisdiction limits)