Lugo v. Ross
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7258
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Forcible entry and detainer action arising from residential tenancy in Heath, Texas between appellees Debra Ross/Jim Ross and appellants Jennifer Lugo/Cary Schulman.
- Lease term March 1, 2009 to March 1, 2011, plus a Lease to Purchase Option Agreement permitting purchase during the term.
- Option exercise notices dated June 2, 2010, but no closing occurred and title was never conveyed to appellants.
- Appellees notified appellants of defaults (HOA fines, repairs, liens, modifications) and informed they would not renew the lease, beginning October–December 2010.
- Appellants did not vacate or pay rent after December 2010; justice court evicted, then trial de novo in county court at law affirmed possession, back rent, fees, and costs.
- Court held appellants’ exercise of the option did not create a title dispute or divest appellees of right to immediate possession; jurisdiction limited to possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does option to purchase convert lease to title dispute? | Lugo/S Schulman rely on 5.062(a)(2) to convert to a sale contract. | Governing subchapter may apply; title may be at stake; eviction improper if no tenancy. | No title dispute; court had possession jurisdiction. |
| Does there exist landlord-tenant relationship under the suit? | Exercise of option ends landlord-tenant relationship; suit improper in justice court. | Remains landlord-tenant for eviction purposes; option does not terminate tenancy for purposes of eviction. | Jurisdiction proper; forcible- entry and detainer allowed. |
| Were notice requirements under 5.068 and 5.064 timely and preclusive? | Failure to observe notice provisions could preclude remedies. | Notice provisions not violated or are inapplicable to eviction remedy in this context. | Not outcome-determinative; judgment stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001) (possession issue governs; title not at issue in forcible detainer)
- Williams v. Bank of New York Mellon, 815 S.W.3d 925 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (possession merits predominate; no title adjudication in eviction suit)
- Guyer v. Rose, 601 S.W.2d 205 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1980) (possession depends on sale contract terms; not a pure tenancy eviction)
- Yarto v. Gilliland, 287 S.W.3d 88 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2009) (purchaser can obtain equitable title by fulfilling contract obligations)
- Shook v. Walden, 368 S.W.3d 604 (Tex.App.-Austin 2012) (Subchapter D interpretation; contracts for deed considerations)
- Haith v. Drake, 596 S.W.2d 194 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1980) (distinguishes equitable title vs. equitable right in purchaser scenarios)