Puentes v. FANNIE MAE
350 S.W.3d 732
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Puenteses financed home at 576 Mogollon Circle; mortgage foreclosed after nonpayment beginning 2009.
- Fannie Mae obtained substitute trustee's deed on foreclosure and sent three vacate notices to Occupants in April 2009.
- First forcible detainer suit filed April 17, 2009; JP Court denied possession but issued interim writ; no further action after June 11, 2009.
- Second forcible detainer suit filed July 2, 2009 seeking same relief; JP Court granted possession and issued writ.
- Puentes appealed to County Court at Law; argued res judicata; trial court admitted Fannie Mae’s second business records affidavit over hearsay objections.
- Issue later focused on admissibility of the business records affidavit, jurisdiction, and res judicata, with the court ultimately upholding the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does res judicata bar the Second JP Suit? | Puenteses claim res judicata barred second suit | Fannie Mae: Second suit independent action for immediate possession | No; Second suit not barred by res judicata |
| Did the First JP Suit's lack of appeal affect jurisdiction of later actions? | No appeal means no jurisdictional defect | Appeal not required to preserve jurisdiction | Second JP Suit properly within jurisdiction |
| Was Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 admissible as a business records affidavit, containing hearsay? | Affiant had personal knowledge; paragraph outside business records | Paragraph outside; still harmless error | Admission not error or harmless; issue overruled |
| Did the trial court err in admitting the second business records affidavit in its entirety? | Affidavit contained inadmissible hearsay | Hearsay within business records; properly admitted | No reversible error; Issue Three overruled |
| Was there any jurisdictional or res judicata defect justifying reversal? | First JP judgment precluded Second JP | Second JP was a separate action; not barred | Judgments affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Garza v. Garza, 765 S.W.2d 899 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1989, no writ) (for forcible detainer timeliness and scope of possessory right)
- Black v. Washington Mut. Bank, 318 S.W.3d 414 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (for appellate review limited to possessory right; no title adjudication)
- Holcombe v. Lorino, 79 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. 1935) (purpose of forcible entry and detainer actions; speedy remedy)
- Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1998) (subject-matter jurisdiction questions reviewed de novo)
- Nissan Motor Co. v. Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. 2004) (business records admissibility; personal knowledge vs. hearsay issues)
- Duncan Development v. Haney, 634 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. 1982) (business records custodian must have knowledge of preparation)