Marcus Williams and All Occupants v. Bayview-Realty Associates Agent
420 S.W.3d 358
Tex. App.2014Background
- Bayview–Realty Associates sued Marcus Williams in justice court for forcible detainer, alleging Williams breached a rental agreement, refused to vacate, and owed rent; Bayview sought possession and unpaid rent.
- Williams appeared pro se in justice court but did not file a written answer; justice court entered judgment for Bayview.
- Williams timely appealed to the county court at law for a trial de novo; the justice-court transcript was filed and the county clerk notified the parties that a written answer was required within eight days under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 753.
- Williams did not file a written answer in the county court within eight days; Bayview moved for default judgment, amended its motion, and the county court entered a no-answer default judgment awarding possession (and later amended the judgment).
- Williams then filed motions to set aside the default judgment, a plea to the jurisdiction, a motion for new trial, and for the first time a written answer; the county court denied relief and Williams appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the justice and county courts had subject-matter jurisdiction over the forcible-detainer action | Bayview: justice and county courts have jurisdiction over forcible-detainer actions; landlord-tenant relationship was alleged | Williams: no landlord-tenant relationship existed; without it courts lacked jurisdiction and Bayview lacked standing | Held: courts had jurisdiction because Bayview alleged a landlord-tenant relationship and Williams’s failure to file a written answer admitted that allegation under Tex. R. Civ. P. 753 |
| Whether Williams may challenge legal sufficiency that a landlord-tenant relationship existed | Bayview: allegation admitted by default; no challenge permitted | Williams: contests sufficiency of evidence of landlord-tenant relationship | Held: barred — by failing to timely answer Williams admitted the factual allegations (except unliquidated damages) and cannot attack sufficiency |
| Whether Williams may challenge factual sufficiency that a landlord-tenant relationship existed | Bayview: default admission forecloses factual-sufficiency review | Williams: factual challenge to existence of landlord-tenant relationship | Held: barred for same reason as legal-sufficiency challenge |
| Whether the county court erred by denying motions to set aside default judgment / for new trial based on lack of notice of the default-hearing | Bayview: no reversible error; Williams did not preserve complaint in trial court | Williams: received no notice of hearing on Bayview’s amended default-motion and thus met Craddock factors for relief | Held: no error preserved — Williams failed to assert lack-of-notice complaint in trial court and did not preserve appellate review; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for reviewing subject-matter jurisdiction de novo)
- Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)
- Austin Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2005) (standing requires a justiciable interest; plaintiff must be personally aggrieved)
- Salaymeh v. Plaza Centro, LLC, 264 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (forcible-detainer courts decide possession, not title; landlord-tenant relationship supports jurisdiction)
- Villalon v. Bank One, 176 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (justice/county courts may resolve possession disputes without adjudicating title when landlord-tenant relationship exists)
- Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc., 242 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007) (default admissions in forcible-detainer context and limits on challenging admitted allegations)
- Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. 1939) (standards for setting aside default judgment / granting new trial)
- Gammill v. Fettner, 297 S.W.3d 792 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (requirement to preserve complaint about lack of notice in trial court)
- Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978) (pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules)