Schlichting v. Lehman Bros. Bank FSB
346 S.W.3d 196
Tex. App.2011Background
- Dec 31, 1999 deed of trust secures $97,500 HELOC; default led to non-judicial foreclosure sale on Jan 1, 2008, with Lehman Brothers Bank FSB as purchaser.
- As purchaser, Lehman Brothers' deed of trust foreclosure created a landlord-tenant-at-sufferance relationship; appellant was required to surrender but did not.
- Lehman Brothers sent Aug 11, 2009 a notice to vacate; appellant did not vacate, leading to forcible detainer action.
- Sept 4, 2009 justice court granted possession to Lehman Brothers; appeal to county court at law resulted in a judgment of possession after non-jury trial.
- Appellant appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals; four issues raised: sufficiency of evidence, title dispute, jurisdiction, and statute of limitations; Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports immediate possession | Schlichting contends insufficient evidence to prove Lehman’s superior right to possession | Lehman Brothers argues deeds and notices establish tenancy-at-sufferance and right to possession | Evidence sufficiently showed Lehman’s right to immediate possession |
| Whether title defects negate forcible-detainer relief | Schlichting relies on a senior-deed/titles dispute to undermine plaintiff’s title | Defects in foreclosure or title cannot be raised in forcible detainer; must pursue separately | Title defects not considered; not material to forcible detainer judgment |
| Whether the court had jurisdiction despite a title dispute | Schlichting claims lack of jurisdiction to determine possession without resolving title | Foreclosure relationship allows independent determination of possession unrelated to title | Court had jurisdiction; no need to decide title to grant possession |
| Whether statute of limitations/timing affects the action | Schlichting contends timeliness issues should bar action | Timeliness concerns pertain to foreclosure process, not forcible detainer | Waived or not controlling; action timely for forcible detainer; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Bank of New York Mellon, 315 S.W.3d 925 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (limits of forcible detainer; need only prove superior right to immediate possession)
- Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001) (forcible detainer requires evidence of ownership to show superior right to possession)
- Shutter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 318 S.W.3d 467 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (defects in foreclosure or title cannot be raised in forcible detainer; must file separate action)