David K. Norvelle and Sylvia D. Norvelle v. PNC Mortgage, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association
472 S.W.3d 444
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- PNC Mortgage (the Bank) filed a forcible detainer (eviction) action in justice court; the petition contained a verification sworn by the Bank’s attorney rather than by a corporate officer or by the Bank itself.
- The Norvelles raised a plea in abatement in justice court claiming the petition did not comply with Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.3(a) (which states a petition "must be sworn to by the plaintiff") because the attorney—not the plaintiff—swore the verification.
- The justice court denied the plea and entered judgment for the Bank; the Norvelles appealed to the county court and renewed their Rule 510.3(a) objection at the trial de novo and in a motion for new trial.
- The county court again ruled for the Bank; the Norvelles appealed to this Court of Appeals, arguing lack of jurisdiction because of the defective verification.
- The court analyzed the new justice-court rules (adopted after small-claims restructuring), definitions of "plaintiff" and "party," and representation rules allowing entities to act through agents or attorneys.
- The court held that an attorney’s sworn verification on behalf of a corporate plaintiff satisfied Rule 510.3(a) and that a defective verification does not deprive the county court of jurisdiction in a forcible detainer action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Norvelle) | Defendant's Argument (PNC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 510.3(a) requires the corporate plaintiff itself to personally swear the eviction petition | Rule 510.3(a)’s plain text requires the petition to be sworn to by the plaintiff (i.e., the entity itself), not by its attorney | Rule 510.3(a) permits verification by a plaintiff’s authorized agent or attorney; attorney verification here was sufficient | The court held attorney verification satisfied Rule 510.3(a); reading it to require a corporate plaintiff’s physical signature is absurd and conflicts with other rules |
| Whether a defective verification deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over a forcible detainer action | Defective verification renders the proceeding void for lack of jurisdiction | A defective or informal verification does not strip the county court of jurisdiction over forcible detainer actions | The court held that a defective verification does not deprive the county court of jurisdiction |
| Whether a plea in abatement was the proper vehicle to raise the verification defect | Plea in abatement should compel dismissal/abatement because the petition wasn’t sworn by the plaintiff | The defect did not impede the court’s ability to determine possession and could be waived; plea in abatement was insufficiently specific | The court relied on precedent that such pleading defects generally do not require abatement and may be waived |
| Whether allowing attorney verification conflicts with justice-court rule changes and legislative intent to simplify small-claims procedure | The 2013 rule changes removed prior language expressly allowing attorney verification, so strict compliance is required | The rules and definitions (plaintiff/party) and rule 500.4’s authorization for representation show attorney verification is consistent with the new scheme | The court read the rules in context and upheld attorney verification as consistent with the rules’ purpose and definitions |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (corporations must appear through counsel in federal courts)
- Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. 1996) (generally a corporation may be represented only by licensed counsel)
- Shutter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 318 S.W.3d 467 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (defective verification does not necessarily deprive justice/county court of jurisdiction in eviction matters)
- Geldard v. Watson, 214 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (justice courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; forcible detainer does not try title)
- Powell v. Mel Powers Inv. Builder, 590 S.W.2d 837 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1979) (defects in petition do not necessarily deprive court of subject-matter jurisdiction)