Juana Mendez Valdez, Et Vir Juan Valdez v. Melody Mueller Moerbe
03-14-00731-CV
Tex. App.Jan 27, 2015Background
- Juana and Juan Valdez (Appellants) occupied and improved a 1.93‑acre parcel beginning in 1999 after buying a deed from Arnie Marie Gordon; they moved a mobile home onto the land by 2000, paid taxes, and added additional mobile homes and improvements over time.
- The Valdezes recorded an affidavit of use/possession in 2006 and a deed recorded May 16, 2007; they relied on those instruments and continued open, continuous possession through 2012.
- Melody Moerbe (Appellee) held record title to a 1.00 acre Seeberger tract (later reduced by condemnation) that overlapped part of the land the Valdezes occupied; she claimed she learned of the Valdezes’ occupation around 2009 and filed a forcible entry and detainer (FED) suit in justice court on March 1, 2012.
- Valdezes sued in district court seeking to quiet title/trespass to try title, alleging they acquired title by adverse possession under both the ten‑year and five‑year statutes; the case went to a jury which answered “No” to both special issues (ten‑year and five‑year adverse possession), and the trial court rendered judgment for Moerbe, quieting title in her.
- Appellants appeal, arguing (1) the evidence conclusively established adverse possession under the ten‑ and five‑year statutes so the court should have rendered judgment as a matter of law, (2) the justice‑court FED filing did not interrupt limitations because that court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate title, and (3) the trial court’s jury charge failed to correctly instruct on notice and extent of use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Valdez) | Defendant's Argument (Moerbe) | Held / Trial Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Ten‑year adverse possession (C.R.P.C. §16.026) — whether Valdezes had 10 years of peaceable, adverse, exclusive, visible possession before March 1, 2012 | Valdez: occupied and improved the tract continuously from 1999–2012; possession was open, notorious, exclusive and hostile; evidence (tax payments, utilities, survey, photos, affidavits) conclusively proves elements | Moerbe: disputed extent/notice of possession and claimed she lacked knowledge until 2009; the jury should decide credibility and whether elements were met | Jury answered “No”; trial court entered judgment for Moerbe (Valdezes contend this verdict is against great weight/no evidence) |
| 2) Five‑year adverse possession (recorded deed + taxes) — whether Valdezes perfected title beginning May 16, 2007 | Valdez: recorded deed/affidavit (2006–2007) and continuous possession thereafter satisfy five‑year statutory elements; recording and tax payments gave constructive notice | Moerbe: argued either no adequate notice, insufficient use of entire tract, or that action in justice court interrupted limitations | Jury answered “No”; trial court denied Valdezes’ motions for instructed verdict/JNOV; Valdezes appeal |
| 3) Effect of justice‑court forcible entry and detainer (FED) filing on limitations | Valdez: the March 1, 2012 FED suit was a nullity for interrupting limitations because a justice court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate title when title is actually in dispute; therefore the FED did not interrupt either limitations period | Moerbe: asserted the FED filing (and resulting justice‑court proceedings) operated to interrupt possession or gave the jury a basis to find interruption/notice | Trial record: justice court awarded possession but county court later abated the case pending outcome here; Valdezes insist the FED was jurisdictionally ineffective; jury apparently treated the filing as interrupting limitations and answered against Valdezes |
| 4) Adequacy of jury charge/instructions (notice, extent of use) | Valdez: requested specific jury instructions that the justice‑court suit did not interrupt limitations (because it lacked jurisdiction) and clearer instruction that possession of part of a deeded tract is sufficient; trial court’s charge was inadequate and misleading | Moerbe: maintained fact issues and credibilty questions warranted jury decision; no single legal instruction would dispose the case | Trial court submitted two special issues with standard definitions; jury asked a question during deliberations; judge replied “Refer to the charge”; Valdezes argue the charge failed to correct juror misconceptions and warrants reversal or new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Anchor Cas. Co. v. Bowers, 393 S.W.2d 168 (Tex. 1965) (interested witness’s uncontradicted testimony may be conclusive when clear, direct, positive, and unimpugned)
- Great Am. Reserve Ins. Co. v. San Antonio Plumbing Supply Co., 391 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1965) (same principle regarding uncontradicted testimony and proof opportunities)
- Brownson v. Scanlon, 59 Tex. 222 (Tex. 1883) (improvements and visible occupation are sufficient to provide notice/establish adverse possession)
- Griswold v. Comer, 161 S.W. 423 (Tex. Civ. App. 1913) (continuous, exclusive, visible use supports adverse possession; owners must exercise diligence to discover such claims)
- Villalon v. Bank One, 176 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (forcible detainer standards; justice court cannot decide title when title is intertwined with possession)
- Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001) (county court on appeal lacks jurisdiction if justice court lacked jurisdiction)
- Gentry v. Marburger, 596 S.W.2d 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1980) (justice court lacked jurisdiction where petition raised title by adverse possession)
- Padilla v. NCJ Dev., Inc., 218 S.W.3d 811 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007) (justice court jurisdiction limits where title determination is necessary)