Betty Getters v. the Baytown Housing Authority
430 S.W.3d 578
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Betty Geters was a long‑time tenant of Baytown Housing Authority (BHA) under a one‑year written lease executed Jan. 1, 2012; lease required BHA to follow HUD regulations and allowed termination/ refusal to renew for "serious or repeated" violations but required a 30‑day termination notice and a right to request a grievance hearing.
- BHA alleged Geters permitted her son to stay more than 14 consecutive days (lease violation); Geters denied this at trial.
- On June 11, 2012 BHA delivered a combined termination notice and notice to vacate giving Geters 30 days (and ten days to request a grievance hearing); BHA filed forcible detainer in justice court on June 28, 2012 (before July 11 vacate deadline).
- Justice court ruled for Geters; BHA appealed de novo to county court; county court awarded possession to BHA and issued a writ after Nov. 2, 2012; Geters vacated Dec. 8, 2012 and appealed.
- The court considered (1) whether the appeal was moot because the lease term expired and (2) whether BHA complied with Tex. Prop. Code § 24.005 (notices), especially subsections (a) (minimum notice before filing) and (e) (separate/later notice when lease gives opportunity to respond).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Geters) | Defendant's Argument (BHA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness / jurisdiction — did lease expiration moot the appeal? | Lease must be automatically renewed under HUD law and the lease’s HUD‑compliance clause creates an arguable right to possession post‑term. | Appeal is moot because the written lease expired Dec. 31, 2012 and did not automatically renew. | Court retained jurisdiction: federal statute/regulations require automatic renewal for public housing leases and the lease obligated BHA to follow HUD rules, so Geters had an arguable right to possession. |
| Notice compliance under Tex. Prop. Code § 24.005(a) — filing before vacate period expired | BHA filed forcible detainer before the 30‑day vacate period expired (filed June 28 though vacate date was July 11). | BHA tried to treat the county court appeal filing date as the operative filing date (Aug. 1) and argued lack of prejudice. | Held BHA violated § 24.005(a): the justice‑court filing date controls and BHA filed prematurely; prejudice/harm analysis is not applicable to timing defects. |
| Notice compliance under Tex. Prop. Code § 24.005(e) — required separate later notice when lease gives opportunity to respond | Lease gave a right to reply/request a grievance hearing (10 days); § 24.005(e) requires a separate, later notice to vacate after response period expires. | BHA argued Geters waived grievance rights by not requesting hearing and that no second notice was required. | Held BHA violated § 24.005(e): a separate later notice to vacate was required regardless of whether tenant actually invoked grievance rights; failure to give it was fatal to forcible‑detainer claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. 2006) (lease expiration can moot forcible‑detainer appeal unless tenant shows arguable right to possession)
- Kennedy v. Andover Place Apartments, 203 S.W.3d 495 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (landlord must provide separate later notice to vacate when lease gives tenant opportunity to respond under § 24.005(e))
- Washington v. Related Arbor Court, LLC, 357 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (applies harm analysis to certain notice defects; distinguishes timing/absence of notice defects)
- Nealy v. Southlawn Palms Apartments, 196 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (applied harm analysis to defects in specificity of termination notice)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal‑sufficiency review)
- Haginas v. Malbis Mem'l Found., 354 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. 1962) (forcible‑detainer actions must originate in justice court and proceed to county court only by appeal)
Summary conclusion: The court reversed the county court's possession judgment and rendered judgment for Geters because BHA failed to comply with the timing and second‑notice requirements of Tex. Prop. Code § 24.005.