Curtis Jackson v. American Homes 4 Rent Properti
05-14-01062-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 29, 2015Background
- Appellee American Homes 4 Rent Properties Eight, LLC bought Curtis Jackson’s house at a foreclosure sale and then sued in forcible detainer to evict him.
- American Homes won in justice court; Jackson appealed to the county court at law where a bench trial de novo was held.
- American Homes admitted three exhibits: the substitute trustee’s deed to American Homes, Jackson’s deed of trust, and a business‑records affidavit proving a notice to vacate; Jackson testified he still lived in the property and had not paid since the lawsuit was filed.
- Jackson made an oral motion to abate the forcible detainer pending related wrongful‑foreclosure litigation; the court denied the motion.
- The county court entered judgment for American Homes granting possession and recovering costs and accrued rent; Jackson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson) | Defendant's Argument (American Homes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admission of evidence | Trial court erred by admitting documents referencing separate wrongful‑foreclosure litigation and the notice to vacate | Exhibits were proper business records and relevant to forcible detainer; Jackson failed to object | Overruled — issue inadequately briefed and no preservation for notice to vacate exhibit |
| 2. Denial of opportunity to present title dispute (due process) | Court prevented Jackson from presenting proof that title disputes preclude forcible detainer | Forcible detainer addresses possession, not title; Jackson was allowed to testify and present his arguments | Overruled — inadequately briefed and record shows Jackson had opportunity to present his case |
| 3. Denial of abatement | Court should have abated eviction pending resolution of related wrongful‑foreclosure suit | Parallel resolution of possession and title is appropriate; abatement is improper and not required | Overruled — inadequately briefed and precedent disfavors abatement of eviction for parallel litigation |
| 4. Subject‑matter jurisdiction | Justice court and county court lacked jurisdiction because title issues determine possession here | Forcible detainer actions decide immediate possession, not title; defects in foreclosure belong in separate suits | Overruled — forcible detainer jurisdiction proper; title challenges must be pursued separately |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001) (forcible detainer determines possession, not title)
- Williams v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 315 S.W.3d 925 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (invalidity of foreclosure is not litigable in forcible detainer)
- Meridien Hotels, Inc. v. LHO Fin. P’ship I, L.P., 97 S.W.3d 731 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (abating eviction for parallel district court litigation is improper)
- Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (appellate briefing requirements: issue must be supported with argument and authorities)