John Briggs v. Washington Federal F/K/A Washington Federal Savings
05-15-00834-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 16, 2015Background
- Washington Federal loaned John and Frances Briggs $188,000 secured by deed of trust on 12311 Ravenview Road; Briggs defaulted and the property was foreclosed and conveyed to Washington Federal in January 2014.
- Washington Federal obtained a justice-court forcible-detainer judgment and writ of possession in March 2014; multiple attempts to evict were impeded by successive bankruptcy filings by Briggs and associates, which bankruptcy court found to be filed in bad faith to delay eviction.
- Defendants were physically evicted in November 2014, but Briggs and others re-entered and changed locks shortly thereafter; Washington Federal thereafter filed suit in district court seeking declaratory judgment of ownership, trespass damages, and injunctive relief.
- Washington Federal moved for traditional summary judgment; Briggs (pro se) filed unspecific, procedurally deficient responses and failed to submit controverting evidence or properly pursue several ancillary TRO/bill-of-review suits.
- The district court granted Washington Federal summary judgment (declaring fee ownership, awarding $16,500 in trespass damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and entering a permanent injunction ordering defendants to vacate and prohibiting reentry); Briggs appealed but his brief failed to comply with appellate rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Declaratory judgment (ownership/possession) | Washington Federal: foreclosure and substitute trustee’s deed vested fee simple title and right to possession. | Briggs: challenges eviction process and events surrounding enforcement (procedural objections). | Court: Granted—Washington Federal conclusively proved ownership; justice-court writ final and not timely appealed. |
| 2. Trespass damages | Washington Federal: Briggs unlawfully re-entered after eviction; damages equal fair rental for period of loss. | Briggs: disputes eviction conduct; offered no controverting proof. | Court: Granted—unauthorized re-entry established and $16,500 awarded. |
| 3. Permanent injunction | Washington Federal: ongoing/continuing trespass and likelihood of reentry justify permanent injunction to protect use and quiet enjoyment. | Briggs: sought TROs and other relief but failed to serve or prosecute; no evidence to counter. | Court: Granted—injunction ordering vacatur and prohibiting reentry was appropriate. |
| 4. Counterclaims / procedural sufficiency | Washington Federal: Briggs’s filings were procedurally defective and contained no evidence; summary judgment therefore negated any counterclaims. | Briggs: asserted various procedural and substantive complaints but did not present legal authority or record citations. | Court: Granted—Briggs failed to present issues or evidence; court awarded that Briggs take nothing on counterclaims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp., 417 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. 2013) (defines trespass to real property and damages for innocent vs. knowing trespass)
- Jim Rutherford Investments, Inc. v. Terramar Beach Cmty. Ass'n, 25 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (summary-judgment standards apply to declaratory-judgment and injunction requests)
- Brownlee v. Brownlee, 665 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. 1984) (non-movant must produce summary-judgment evidence to raise a fact issue)
- Anderson v. McCrae, 495 S.W.2d 351 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1973) (UDJA declaratory relief available to resolve uncertainty in rights and status)