Effel v. Rosberg
360 S.W.3d 626
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Rosberg filed forcible detainer suit after purchasing property from Henry and Jack Effel under a settlement that allowed the resident (Effel) to remain for life or until she chose to vacate.
- A lease was prepared naming Effel as lessee under Rosberg’s authority, stating the term lasts for the remainder of Effel’s life or until she vacates.
- The deed transferred title without reserving a life estate for Effel; Effel was not a signatory to the settlement, only a party to the lease.
- Rosberg terminated Effel’s lease in February 2010 for alleged lease violations and gave ten days to vacate; Effel did not vacate.
- Both the justice court and the county court awarded Rosberg possession; the trial court concluded the lease created a tenancy at will terminable by either party, and the termination was proper.
- Rosberg filed the forcible detainer action on April 29, 2010; the timing related to the February 24, 2010 termination notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there jurisdiction in justice and county courts to hear forcible detainer? | Effel argued title disputes deprived jurisdiction. | Rosberg argued landlord-tenant status to determine possession. | Jurisdiction proper; title disputes not required to defeat forcible detainer. |
| Does the lease create a life estate or a tenancy at will? | Effel contends a life estate/lifetime lease controls and shifts title. | Rosberg argues the lease is indefinite, thus an estate at will terminable by either party. | The lease is terminable at will by either party; no life estate created. |
| Was the notice to vacate under §24.005 proper? | Effel challenges sufficiency of the February 24 notice. | Rosberg asserts notice complied with §24.005 for an at-will tenancy. | Notice satisfied §24.005; no defect necessary to support eviction. |
| Is there any need to address the March 17 notice? | Effel argues multiple notices show defects. | Rosberg’s February 24 notice suffices; March 17 irrelevant. | Not addressed; February 24 notice sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001) (jurisdictional limits for appeals from justice courts; title not required to deny possessory action)
- Haith v. Drake, 596 S.W.2d 194 (Tex.App.-Houston 1980) (title issues do not defeat forcible detainer jurisdiction; possession focus)
- Doggett v. Nitschke, 498 S.W.2d 339 (Tex.1973) (distinguish condemnation procedure from forcible detainer; life-lease not title issue here)
- Nitschke v. Doggett, 489 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1972) (lease for life treated as at-will when indefinite duration)
- Holcombe v. Lorino, 79 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.1935) (lease for life must be for definite period or terminable at will)
- Providence Land Servs., L.L.C. v. Jones, 353 S.W.3d 538 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2011) (indefinite leases typically constitute tenancies at will)