371 S.W.3d 361
Tex. App.2012Background
- Erika and Nancy, sisters, filed a Sworn Complaint for Eviction against Christopher and Steve to recover possession of their late mother Mendoza's property and asserted no lease existed.
- The justice court entered judgment for Erika and Nancy, ordering possession, set an appeal bond, and required monthly rent during appeal.
- Christopher and Steve appealed to the county court which conducted a de novo hearing without testimony or evidence, but with opening statements about possession and title disputes.
- The county court ruled in Erika and Nancy's favor on forcible detainer, awarded $1,800 in attorney's fees conditioned on prevailing in a district court declaratory-judgment action about the deed, and set a supersedeas bond of $18,000.
- Christopher and Steve moved to modify and for new trial arguing a pending district-court title case affected jurisdiction; the county court did not expressly rule on these motions.
- The sole issue on appeal is whether the county court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to a pending district-court title dispute affecting possession rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the county court had subject-matter jurisdiction. | Pina contends a pending district court title dispute precludes forcible detainer. | Pina asserts the forcible detainer de novo review is limited to possession and not title; district court can resolve title in a separate action. | County court lacked jurisdiction; title disputes must be resolved in district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruce v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n, 352 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (possession can be determined without resolving title if deed creates landlord-tenant relationship)
- Black v. Washington Mutual Bank, 318 S.W.3d 414 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.], 2010) (forcible detainer review limited to possession; title not adjudicated)
- Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001) (forcible detainer may be pursued concurrently with a suit to try title)
- Villalon v. Bank One, 176 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (deed of trust landlord-tenant provisions may allow possession without quieting title)
- Geldard v. Watson, 214 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (possession may require title resolution; context of homestead/right to possession)
- Dass, Inc. v. Smith, 206 S.W.3d 197 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (title dispute can affect possessory rights in related actions)
- Gentry v. Marburger, 596 S.W.2d 201 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1980) (title issues intertwined with possession affect jurisdiction)
- Dormady v. Dinero Land & Cattle Co., L.C., 61 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001) (title disputes can preclude forcible detainer jurisdiction when intertwined with possession)