Pinnacle Premier Properties, Inc. and Pinnacle Realty Advisors, Inc v. Ghislain Breton, Catherine Denicourt and David Andreis
447 S.W.3d 558
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Melba and Howard Johnson executed a deed of trust securing a $77,500 note; title later passed through several entities and the lots were developed and sold to appellees Breton, Denicourt, and Andreis.
- The note was never paid off; Pinnacle Realty Advisors assigned the note to Pinnacle Premiere Properties, which purchased the property at a foreclosure sale and served notices to vacate "to Melba and All Occupants."
- Pinnacle Premiere filed forcible-detainer (eviction) suits in justice court; appellees then sued in district court asserting wrongful foreclosure and quiet-title claims and sought an injunction to stop the justice-court evictions.
- The district court issued a temporary restraining order and then a temporary injunction enjoining Pinnacle from pursuing the justice-court eviction proceedings.
- The court of appeals considered whether the district court erred, focusing on (1) whether title issues were "intertwined" with possession given a tenant-at-sufferance clause in the deed of trust and (2) whether appellees had an adequate remedy at law for wrongful foreclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court could enjoin justice-court eviction | Appellees: foreclosure was improper; injunction necessary to protect title and possession | Pinnacle: justice court has exclusive jurisdiction over immediate possession because deed contains a tenant‑at‑sufferance clause | Reversed — justice court had exclusive jurisdiction over possession; injunction improper |
| Whether alleged title defects are "intertwined" with possession | Appellees: defects in foreclosure mean title and possession are tied, so justice court cannot decide possession | Pinnacle: tenant‑at‑sufferance clause severs possession from title; defects irrelevant to possession after foreclosure sale and notice | Held that tenant‑at‑sufferance clause separates title and possession; issues not intertwined |
| Whether subsequent purchasers (appellees) are bound by tenant‑at‑sufferance clause | Appellees: they never agreed to the deed, so clause shouldn’t bind them | Pinnacle: subsequent occupants hold subject to existing deed and clause; grantor cannot convey greater rights | Held that subsequent purchasers junior to the deed are subject to the tenant‑at‑sufferance clause |
| Whether appellees lack an adequate remedy at law | Appellees: real estate is unique; money damages inadequate; injunction required | Pinnacle: foreclosure already occurred; wrongful‑foreclosure remedy (rescission or damages) is adequate | Held appellees have adequate remedy at law (rescission or damages); injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001) (justice court has exclusive jurisdiction over immediate possession; title disputes that are intertwined with possession remove justice court jurisdiction)
- McGlothlin v. Kliebert, 672 S.W.2d 231 (Tex. 1984) (district court may enjoin a justice court’s exercise of jurisdiction only when justice court lacks jurisdiction or defendant lacks adequate remedy at law)
- Diversified, Inc. v. Gibraltar Sav. Ass’n, 762 S.W.2d 620 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988) (remedies following wrongful foreclosure include rescission of trustee’s deed or recovery of damages)
- Williams v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 315 S.W.3d 925 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (defects in foreclosure are irrelevant to forcible‑detainer determination of possession when tenant‑at‑sufferance clause applies)
- Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585 (Tex. 2008) (appellate courts construe issues liberally to achieve fair adjudication)