Patten Custom Homes, LLC v. Robert Mahlin, Anne Mahlin and Samanum Ngernerd
05-16-01017-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Occupants (Robert & Anne Mahlin and Samanum Ngernerd) remained living at 5223 Richard Avenue after Patten Custom Homes, LLC (PCH) purchased the property following a substitute-trustee foreclosure sale.
- PCH sent certified notices to vacate and filed a forcible-detainer action in justice court; the justice court awarded possession and attorney’s fees to PCH; the Mahlins appealed to county court at law.
- The Mahlins filed a plea to the jurisdiction attaching February 29, 2016 letters from Robert Mahlin purporting to rescind the loan under TILA, arguing the foreclosure and subsequent deeds were void.
- At the county-court bench trial the court denied the plea, admitted PCH’s foreclosure- and deed-related documents, took judicial notice of pleadings, but ultimately entered a take-nothing judgment for the Occupants.
- On appeal PCH argued the evidence conclusively established its right to immediate possession and entitlement to attorney’s fees under Tex. Prop. Code § 24.006.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and rendered judgment awarding possession and attorney’s fees to PCH, and remanded to the trial court to determine a reasonable fee amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of evidence for take-nothing judgment | PCH: substitute trustee’s deed, warranty deed, and notices to vacate conclusively establish PCH’s right to possession | Mahlins: TILA rescission letters voided the note, deed of trust, and foreclosure sale | Reversed: evidence establishes PCH’s right to immediate possession as a matter of law; take-nothing judgment unsupported |
| Proper forum to challenge foreclosure validity | PCH: forcible-detainer determines possession only; foreclosure validity is not for this proceeding | Mahlins: TILA rescission letters demonstrate foreclosure was invalid, so possession award improper | Held: foreclosure validity cannot be adjudicated in forcible-detainer; such challenges require separate suit |
| Creation of tenancy at sufferance | PCH: Occupants remained after valid notices to vacate, creating tenancy at sufferance | Mahlins: continued possession justified by claimed rescission/invalidation | Held: continued possession after proper notice created tenancy at sufferance; PCH entitled to possession |
| Entitlement to attorney’s fees under § 24.006 | PCH: complied with statutory notice requirements and is prevailing landlord, so fees recoverable | Mahlins: opposed but did not prevail on jurisdictional plea; contested reasonableness/amount | Held: PCH entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees; remanded to trial court to determine amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp., 417 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. 2013) (foreclosure sale transfers title and right to possession)
- Williams v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 315 S.W.3d 925 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (forcible-detainer adjudicates possession only; sale validity must be litigated separately)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (standard for reviewing legal-sufficiency/matter-of-law challenges)