Laredo National Bank D/B/A as BBVA Compass Bank v. Myrna Elizabeth De Luna Morales
13-14-00644-CV
Tex. App.Jul 9, 2015Background
- Appellee (Myrna de Luna Morales) alleges Compass Bank illegally conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure on her South Padre Island home on April 1, 2014, and purchased the property at the sale. Appellee contends the sale was invalid because Compass was not the holder of the note and/or did not follow the Deed of Trust procedures.
- Appellee filed suit in district court (May 12, 2014) asserting claims including trespass to try title, breach of contract, DTPA/consumer-reliance theories, and requests to set aside the foreclosure.
- Appellee obtained a temporary injunction (June 26, 2014) enjoining Compass from pursuing a forcible detainer/eviction in justice court; Compass moved to dissolve the injunction and sought dismissal/summary judgment, which the district court denied (Oct. 31, 2014).
- Appellee argues the pleadings themselves supply “specific evidence” of a title dispute (lack of negotiation/endorsement of the note; failure to permit cure; substitute-trustee problems), depriving the justice court of jurisdiction and justifying district-court injunctive relief.
- Appellee also argues Compass’s appellate request asks the court for an advisory ruling on the merits (i.e., that Appellee has no valid claim), and that the appeal may be moot because a district-court trial was scheduled shortly after briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (de Luna Morales) | Defendant's Argument (Compass) | Held (trial court / appellee position) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the district court authorized to issue a temporary injunction enjoining a justice-court forcible-detainer action? | District court properly enjoined the justice-court eviction because the petition raises specific title issues (invalid foreclosure, lack of note negotiation, failure to permit cure) and loss of the home is irreparable. | Compass contends forcible-detainer proceedings are for justice court; immediate possession issues, not title, so injunction was improper. | District court did not err: pleadings constitute specific evidence of a title dispute, removing justice-court jurisdiction and supporting a temporary injunction. |
| 2. Did Appellant lack standing to seek a ruling that Appellee has no viable claims (i.e., is the appeal an impermissible request for an advisory opinion)? | Appellant improperly seeks an advisory opinion on the merits; relief should be denied for lack of justiciable controversy/standing. | Compass argues injunction should be dissolved because Appellee has no probable right to recovery. | Appellee argues (and trial court implicitly found) the request is premature; appellate relief would amount to an advisory opinion and should be denied. |
| 3. Do Appellee’s pleadings constitute "specific evidence" of a title dispute sufficient to deprive the justice court of jurisdiction? | Yes — assertions about lack of negotiation/endorsement of the note, wrongful substitute-trustee acts, and denial of cure create an intertwined title dispute. | Compass asserts the case is a possession/tenant-at-sufferance claim suitable for justice court. | Held for Appellee: pleadings and notice of pending district-court litigation are specific evidence of a title dispute; justice court lacks jurisdiction. |
| 4. Is the appeal moot because trial was set and the injunction has been in place for a long time? | The impending trial and passage of time render appellate relief practically ineffective; the appeal should be dismissed as moot. | Compass seeks immediate appellate dissolution of the injunction. | Appellee contends the appeal may be moot; if so, appeal should be dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Weber, 72 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. App.–Waco 2002) (a party's pleadings can supply "specific evidence" of a title dispute that defeats justice-court jurisdiction in forcible-detainer matters)
- Mitchell v. Armstrong Capital Corp., 911 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (if a genuine title issue is apparent from pleadings/notice of pending district litigation, justice/county courts lack jurisdiction in forcible-detainer actions)
- Yarto v. Gilliland, 287 S.W.3d 83 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2009) (interpreting the ‘‘specific evidence’’ standard and holding that assertions that are not patently ineffective can raise a title dispute)
- Falcon v. Ensignia, 976 S.W.2d 336 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1998) (distinguishes cases in which an oral/unenforceable claim fails to create a genuine title dispute)
- Rus‑Ann Dev., Inc. v. ECC, Inc., 222 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. App.–Tyler 2007) (loss of one's home can constitute irreparable harm supporting injunctive relief)