Christy Onabajo and Femi Onabajo v. Household Finance Corp. III
03-15-00251-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 8, 2015Background
- Borrowers (Onabajo) executed a Texas home-equity note and deed of trust on the subject property in 2001; the deed required a court-ordered foreclosure for home-equity loans.
- Appellee (Household Finance Corp. III) alleges it foreclosed via a Rule 736 application and purchased the property at a substitute trustee sale on April 3, 2012.
- Appellee served a Notice to Vacate on May 3, 2012 and filed a forcible-detainer proceeding in August 2012; a justice-court judgment ultimately favored the borrowers and Appellee dismissed its appeal.
- Appellee later served a second Notice to Vacate (delivered Oct. 17, 2014) and filed a new forcible-detainer suit the same day; a justice court then awarded possession to Appellee on Nov. 6, 2014.
- On de novo appeal, the Travis County court of law entered judgment for Appellee on March 31, 2015.
- Appellants appeal, challenging jurisdiction (title intertwined), compliance with Tex. Prop. Code §24.005 (notice), the two-year statute of limitations (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §16.003), and res judicata/splitting of claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Household) | Defendant's Argument (Onabajo) | Held (trial/county court posture) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Jurisdiction — whether title issues divest justice/county courts | Foreclosure and substitute trustee deed conveyed title and created tenancy at sufferance, so forcible-detainer courts have jurisdiction over possession | Foreclosure was invalid/unsupported (no chain of endorsements), so possession necessarily requires resolving title and justice/county courts lack jurisdiction | County court entered judgment for plaintiff; appellants contend lack of jurisdiction and appeal |
| 2. Notice compliance (Tex. Prop. Code §24.005) | Plaintiff gave required written demand to vacate before filing forcible-detainer | Plaintiff filed suit the same day the notice was delivered (premature); statute requires notice period to expire before suit | County court ruled for plaintiff despite appellants' argument that filing was premature |
| 3. Statute of limitations (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §16.003) | Plaintiff treats each refusal to surrender as a new cause of action resetting the limitations period | Cause of action accrued at latest on or shortly after the April 3, 2012 foreclosure or first May 3, 2012 demand; two-year limitations bars the 2014 filing | Trial/county court allowed plaintiff's claim; appellants argue the suit is time-barred and appeal |
| 4. Res judicata / claim-splitting | Plaintiff argues subsequent notice created a fresh forcible-detainer claim | Earlier forcible-detainer action (and appeal dismissal) involved same parties, property, and issue — plaintiffs cannot relitigate; single-action rule bars splitting | County court permitted new suit; appellants contend prior final judgment and dismissal preclude relitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp., 417 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. 2013) (foreclosure purchaser acquires right to possession; accrual principles for property claims)
- Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., 348 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. 2011) (causes of action accrue when facts authorizing relief arise)
- Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard of review for subject-matter jurisdiction is de novo; construe pleadings liberally for jurisdictional facts)
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Valero Energy Corp., 997 S.W.2d 203 (Tex. 1999) (res judicata principles and finality of judgments)
- Leavings v. Mills, 175 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (successive transfers/endorsements required to trace foreclosure rights when enforcer is not original mortgagee)