Niti Properties LLC v. James P. Arthur, Mary Arthur and All Other Occupants, 14-20-00770-CV

Background

In 2006 the Arthurs purchased 7639 Beechnut St. and executed a deed of trust to Blackburne & Brown Mortgage Fund I to finance the purchase.
Blackburne foreclosed on November 5, 2019; Niti Properties purchased the property at the trustee’s sale and received a substitute trustee’s deed.
The Arthurs obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a separate district-court proceeding that ostensibly restrained foreclosure and eviction of the property.
Niti served a notice to vacate; justice court awarded possession to Niti and the Arthurs appealed to the county court at law.
In county court Niti moved for summary judgment attaching the deed of trust (with a tenant-at-sufferance clause), the substitute trustee’s deed, and the notice to vacate; the county court initially granted summary judgment, later withdrew it, and then entered an amended final judgment awarding possession to the Arthurs based on the TRO without a trial de novo.
Niti appealed; the court of appeals reversed, holding the county court erred in awarding possession without a trial de novo and remanded for a new trial to determine whether title is so intertwined with possession that the justice court lacked jurisdiction or who has superior right to possession.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the county court could resolve alleged wrongful foreclosure (TRO violation) in the forcible-detainer proceeding	Niti: foreclosure valid; TRO was invalid or not controlling here	Arthurs: foreclosure violated district-court TRO and was wrongful	Court did not reach merits of TRO issue after finding procedural error; appellate court reversed without deciding TRO validity
Whether county court properly awarded possession to Arthurs without a trial de novo and despite tenancy-at-sufferance clause	Niti: presented substitute trustee’s deed, deed with tenant-at-sufferance clause, and proper notice — sufficient to show superior right to immediate possession	Arthurs: deed of trust was superseded by an agreed judgment/TRO, so tenancy-at-sufferance does not apply	Court held trial court erred by entering amended judgment awarding possession without conducting a required trial de novo; reversed and remanded for de novo trial to determine whether title and possession are intertwined or who has superior right

Key Cases Cited

Espinoza v. Lopez, 468 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (forcible detainer determines immediate possession, not title)
Marshall v. Housing Authority of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. 2006) (forcible-detainer actions are speedy and limited to possession)
Pinnacle Premier Props., Inc. v. Breton, 447 S.W.3d 558 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (justice/county courts lack jurisdiction when title dispute must be decided to resolve possession)
Salaymeh v. Plaza Centro, LLC, 264 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (distinguishing title and possession and when jurisdiction is divested)
U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Freeney, 266 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (elements a purchaser must show in forcible-detainer action when relying on tenancy-at-sufferance clause)
Yarbrough v. Household Finance Corp. III, 455 S.W.3d 277 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (tenancy-at-sufferance clause provides independent basis for forcible-detainer action)
Mitchell v. Armstrong Capital Corp., 911 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (justice court jurisdiction limits where title must be determined)
City of Glenn Heights v. Sheffield Dev. Co., 55 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (rules on judicial notice on appeal)
Fox v. Alberto, 455 S.W.3d 659 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (documents not in appellate record cannot be considered)
Brown v. Brown, 236 S.W.3d 343 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (appellate court confined to trial record when reviewing trial-court action)