Jessica Briones v. Brazos Bend Villa Apartments
438 S.W.3d 808
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Tenant Jessica Briones occupied a HUD‑subsidized apartment under a written lease that converted to month‑to‑month after the initial term; lease required landlord to follow HUD rules and give a 10‑day opportunity to discuss any proposed termination.
- Brazos Bend delivered a "Notice of Proposed Termination of Occupancy" on April 30, 2012, citing drug‑related activity and advising Briones she had 10 days to meet the manager; it also demanded she vacate by June 1, 2012.
- Briones did not vacate; Brazos Bend filed forcible detainer in justice court on June 6, 2012, prevailed, and the case proceeded de novo to the county court, where a bench trial awarded possession, a writ of possession was executed, and the trial court also awarded attorney’s fees and costs.
- Briones did not post a supersedeas bond and was evicted before appeal; she appealed challenging (1) lack of statutory notice to vacate under Tex. Prop. Code §24.005 and (2) Brazos Bend’s entitlement to recover attorney’s fees.
- The appellate court held the possession challenge moot (Briones no longer in possession and she did not contest lease termination), but retained jurisdiction to decide whether statutory notice was given and whether Brazos Bend could recover fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Briones) | Defendant's Argument (Brazos Bend) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of possession award | Appeal not moot because automatic month‑to‑month renewal gives right to current possession unless lease termination was invalid | Lease was validly terminated per lease and evidence of drug activity; failure to supersede does not bar appeal but possession issue is moot if tenant no longer in possession and asserts no meritorious current possession claim | Appeal as to possession is moot and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Briones did not assert a meritorious claim to current possession |
| Whether statutory notice to vacate was given before filing forcible detainer (Tex. Prop. Code §24.005) | The "Notice of Proposed Termination" was not a separate notice to vacate; statute barred giving a notice to vacate until tenant’s response period expired; no separate later notice was proved | The termination notice sufficed as the notice to vacate | Held for Briones: statute required a separate notice after the tenant’s response period; no evidence of such a separate notice, so Brazos Bend failed to comply with §24.005 |
| Entitlement to attorney’s fees and court costs (Tex. Prop. Code §24.006) | Fees unlawful because Brazos Bend was not a "prevailing" landlord due to failure to give statutory notice | Trial court found written demand to vacate was received as required by law; fees awarded | Reversed: because no evidence of compliance with §24.005, Brazos Bend cannot be treated as prevailing and may not recover attorney’s fees or court costs; judgment rendered that Brazos Bend take nothing on fees/costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Andover Place Apartments, 203 S.W.3d 495 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (HUD‑subsidized tenant’s challenge to lease termination and statutory notice addressed; distinguishes when possession claim is not moot)
- Marshall v. Housing Authority of the City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. 2006) (failure to supersede does not forfeit right to appeal forcible detainer, but possession issue may be moot if tenant no longer occupies)
- Wilhelm v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 349 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (court discussed effect of eviction and supersedeas on appellate jurisdiction in forcible detainer appeals)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for legal‑sufficiency review of evidence)
- Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295 (Tex. 1994) (bench‑trial findings review using jury‑verdict sufficiency standards)
- Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83 (Tex. 1999) (mootness and appellate jurisdiction principles)
- Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., L.C., 348 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. 2011) (appellant challenging legal sufficiency of adverse finding must show no evidence supports it)
- Daftary v. Prestonwood Market Square, Ltd., 399 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (possession issue may be moot after eviction while fee award remains live controversy)