Dana Dutschmann and Kevin Bierwirth v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 03-14-00561-CV

This is an appeal from a Travis County forcible detainer judgment in favor of Fannie Mae after a foreclosure sale.
Foreclosure occurred on June 7, 2011, after which Bierwirth allegedly became a tenant at sufferance.
Fannie Mae served multiple 3-day notices to vacate and filed forcible detainer actions, but judgment for possession was sought later.
County Court at Law No. 2 issued a writ of possession and provisional orders (including a 310 writ) in 2011–2014.
The appellant argues the action was time-barred by the two-year limitations period and the 310 writs were improper, among other procedural issues.
The court considers accrual timing, the improper use of 310 writs, and whether due process was violated during the stay and supersedeas process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §16.003 two-year limit bars the FED action	Bierwirth argues accrual began at foreclosure, so action barred	Fannie Mae contends accrual occurs later	Yes, barred by statute of limitations
Whether a TRCP 310 writ was improperly used	Writs improperly issued without a proper 309 foreclosure	Writs claimed as possession tools	Writs improper; cannot substitute for FED
Whether the lack of a timely supersedeas bond was error	Judge failed to set bond amount required to stay judgment	Bond not posted; writ issued timely per rules	Error in not setting supersedeas bond amount
Whether the trial judge signing the judgment was necessary for due process	Judge Carroll should have signed the judgment	Judge Sheppard signed; presence questioned	Not applicable to outcome; procedural defect acknowledged

Bay Area Laundry and Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U.S. 192 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (statutory accrual and repose principles; action needed timely filing)
Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apt. Corp., 417 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. 2013) (forcible detainer limitations and possession rights)
Kennedy v. Andover Place Apts., 203 S.W.3d 495 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (lease and eviction timing not resetting accrual)
Goggin v. Leo, 849 S.W.2d 373 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) (FED action requires demonstration of immediate possession rights)
Williams v. Bayview-Realty Assocs., 420 S.W.3d 358 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (possession rights; FED action is a speedy remedy)
Trail Enters., v. City of Houston, 957 S.W.2d 625 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (accrual and limitation principles in real property actions)
Marshall v. Houston Auth. Of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. 2006) (courts’ handling of post-judgment procedures and stays)
Rawlings v. Ray, 312 U.S. 96 (1941) (accrual concepts; complete and present cause of action)
RepublicBank Dallas, N.A. v Interkal, Inc., 691 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1985) (statutory interpretation and accrual timing)
Upjohn Co. v. Freeman, 885 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994) (continuing tort/ accrual considerations)