Lenny Acevedo v. Federal National Mortgage Association A/K/A Fannie Mae, 03-15-00215-CV

Foreclosure of Acevedo's home occurred on April 5, 2011, with title transferring to Fannie Mae.
April 11, 2011, Fannie Mae's NOTICE TO VACATE was sent to Acevedo.
Acevedo refused to vacate, becoming a tenant at sufferance and the forcible detainer status arose.
Fannie Mae filed forcible detainer actions; Acevedo remained in possession through multiple suits culminating in a de novo trial in Travis County Court at Law No. 2 on April 2, 2015.
Judge Elena Diaz dismissed the action as barred by expiration of statute of limitations on September 23, 2014.
Acevedo argues accrual began April 16, 2011 and that later notices to vacate do not restart the limitations period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §16.003 bars the FED suit	Acevedo argues accrual occurred 4/16/2011, so the two-year limit bars later actions.	Fannie Mae contends accrual can reset with new notices to vacate.	Yes, §16.003 bars the suit.
When accrual begins in forcible detainer	Accrual begins when legal injury occurs (notice to vacate).	Accrual can be triggered anew by subsequent notices.	Accrual begins at first notice, not anew with subsequent notices.
Whether notices to vacate reset limitations	Each new notice to vacate restarts the limitations period.	Not addressed explicitly; argues for resetting accrual.	Accrual does not reset with new notices; remains the same action.
Effect of res judicata and laches on subsequent FED actions	Res judicata/la chesimed have been misapplied to extend eviction rights.	Res judicata/la ches failure to bar subsequent actions; multiple FED actions allowed.	Court treated prior rulings and laches appropriately; not favored to extend.
Constitutional implications of perpetual forcible detainers	Continuous litigation undermines Texas Constitution protections.	Statutes of limitations serve repose; litigation allowed within limits.	No ruling on constitutionality beyond accrual mechanics.

Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826 (Tex. 1990) (statute of limitations concept and accrual timing)
Via Net v. TIG Ins. Co., 211 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2006) ( accrual and injury concepts in notices)
Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp., 35 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. 2000) (single action rule discussion)
Fernandi v. Strully, 173 A.2d 277 (N.J. 1961) (accrual determination guiding principle)
Gautier v. Franklin, 1 Tex. 734 (Tex. 1847) (statutes of limitations as repose)
Willis v. Maverick, 760 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. 1988) (accrual timing and purposes of limitations)
Doe v. Catholic Diocese of El Paso, 362 S.W.3d 707 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2011) ( accrual and discovery concepts)
Puentes v. Fannie Mae, 350 S.W.3d 732 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2010) (res judicata in justice court)
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Trinh Pham, 449 S.W.3d 230 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (res judicata limitations discussion)