Christy Onabajo and Femi Onabajo v. Household Finance Corp. III
03-15-00251-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 14, 2016Background
- In 2001 the Onabajos executed a Texas home-equity note and security instrument that created a landlord/tenant-at-sufferance relationship upon foreclosure.
- After default, Household Finance (as alleged successor/assignee) foreclosed; a substitute trustee’s deed conveyed the property to Household Finance on April 3, 2012.
- Household Finance sent a written Notice to Vacate (dated Oct. 8, 2014) instructing the Onabajos to leave within three days; it mailed the notice (certified and first-class) on Oct. 14, 2014.
- The certified mailing tracking record shows delivery on Oct. 17, 2014 — the same day Household Finance filed a forcible-detainer suit in justice court.
- At the county-court de novo bench trial, Household Finance introduced the deed, security instrument, the notice, and a business-records affidavit; the trial court awarded possession to Household Finance.
- On appeal the Third Court of Appeals addressed jurisdictional and notice issues and reversed, rendering judgment for the Onabajos because pre-suit notice under Tex. Prop. Code § 24.005 was not established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction/title challenge: Whether alleged defects in chain-of-title/foreclosure deprived the justice/county courts of jurisdiction over forcible-detainer action | Onabajos: foreclosure was improper because the Note named a different assignee (Provident Bank), so Household Finance lacked authority — creating a title dispute | Household Finance: deed of trust foreclosure created a landlord/tenant-at-sufferance relationship so forcible-detainer courts may decide possession without resolving title | Held: Overruled for Onabajos’ jurisdictional claim; defective foreclosure/chain-of-title claims must be raised in separate suit and do not automatically deprive forcible-detainer courts of jurisdiction when landlord/tenant relationship exists |
| Pre-suit notice under Tex. Prop. Code § 24.005: Whether Household Finance provided the required 3 days’ written notice to vacate before filing suit | Onabajos: Notice was delivered Oct. 17, 2014 — same day suit was filed — so statutory 3‑day notice was not given | Household Finance: Notice mailed Oct. 14 and therefore presumed delivered in time under mailbox presumption (Rule 21a) | Held: Sustained for Onabajos; the record shows certified delivery on Oct. 17, rebutting any presumption of timely receipt, so Household Finance failed to prove statutory notice and award of possession was erroneous |
| Application of mailbox rule to section 24.005 | Household Finance: presumption of delivery applies to notices mailed and yields timely notice | Onabajos: actual delivery date controls; evidence shows delivery on filing date | Held: Court assumed arguendo the mailbox rule could apply but concluded the evidence rebuts the presumption and shows notice was not effective for the 3‑day period |
| Alternative affirmative defenses (statute of limitations, res judicata) | Onabajos: raised as additional grounds to defeat HF’s claim | Household Finance: not dispositive on appeal | Held: Court did not reach these issues because reversal on notice was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 315 S.W.3d 925 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (forcible-detainer is a summary remedy for immediate possession)
- Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001) (plaintiff need not prove title, only superior right to possession)
- Dormady v. Dinero Land & Cattle Co., 61 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001) (justice/county courts lack jurisdiction to decide title in forcible‑detainer)
- Schlichting v. Lehman Bros. Bank FSB, 346 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (title challenges must be pursued in separate suits where appropriate)
- Morris v. American Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 360 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (foreclosure instrument can create landlord/tenant-at-sufferance relationship)
- Briones v. Brazos Bend Villa Apts., 438 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (proper notice is an element of forcible-detainer and may be challenged on appeal)
- Cliff v. Huggins, 724 S.W.2d 778 (Tex. 1987) (discussing mailbox rule presumption of delivery)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence)
- Moncrief Oil Int’l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013) (bench-trial judgments imply all fact findings supported by evidence)
- Geters v. Baytown Hous. Auth., 430 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (failure to give statutory three‑day notice under § 24.005 is reversible error)