Ricardo Vaiz v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 13-14-00110-CV

Fannie Mae filed a forcible detainer action in justice court (Precinct 5, Place 3) on June 6, 2013 seeking possession of property at 22329 FM 2556 / West Cantu Road, La Feria / Santa Rosa, TX.\
Justice court awarded possession to Fannie Mae; Vaiz appealed de novo to Cameron County Court-at-Law No. 2.\
In county court, Fannie Mae moved for summary judgment, attaching: a Substitute Trustee’s Deed showing foreclosure sale purchase, the 2007 Deed of Trust, a notice to vacate, and a law-firm business records affidavit.\
Vaiz argued lack of jurisdiction (wrong precinct), sought discovery, and contested notice and evidence of superior right to possession.\
The appellate court requested and considered county resolution and a map (Resolution 2011R) showing precinct boundaries to confirm the action was filed in the correct precinct; Vaiz objected to consideration but court found the materials sufficient.\
The county court granted summary judgment for Fannie Mae; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Vaiz)	Defendant's Argument (Fannie Mae)	Held
Jurisdiction (precinct)	Case filed in wrong justice precinct (should be Precinct 7) so courts lacked jurisdiction	County resolution and map show precincts were re-designated and property lies in Precinct 5 Place 3, so filing was proper	Court found submitted resolution/map sufficient; justice and county courts had jurisdiction; issue overruled
Discovery denial	Trial court abused discretion by denying discovery and protective order; Rule 245 not followed	Discovery was untimely and unrelated to possession issue	Waived on appeal for inadequate briefing and lack of record citations; issue overruled
Summary judgment on possession	No notice of eviction; factual sufficiency challenge; circumstantial evidence could defeat SJ	Presented Substitute Trustee’s Deed, Deed of Trust, notice to vacate, and business records affidavit establishing superior right to possession	Fannie Mae’s proof established superior right to immediate possession; Vaiz produced no contrary evidence; SJ affirmed
Notice to vacate	No evidence notice was sent to Vaiz; notice was unrealistic and alternative methods should have been used	Notice was sent by certified mail to property address(es) listed in Deed of Trust; deed provision deems mailed notice effective; statute requires only three days’ notice	Court held mailed notice to deed address plus business records affidavit sufficient; no authority requires additional methods; issue overruled

Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2004) (standard of review for summary judgment)\
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (review view evidence most favorably to nonmovant)\
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Freeney, 266 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2008) (forcible detainer requires only superior right to possession, not title)\
Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2001) (same principle for forcible detainer)\
Aguilar v. Weber, 72 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. App. — Waco 2002) (appellate jurisdiction of county court limited by justice court jurisdiction)