Takesha Dunlap v. Beauly, LLC
02-17-00052-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Beauly, LLC purchased 705 Champion Way, Mansfield, TX at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale and received a substitute trustee’s deed.
- Beauly sued Takesha Dunlap in justice court for forcible detainer, alleging Dunlap became a tenant-at-sufferance under the deed of trust and refused written demand to vacate.
- Justice court awarded possession to Beauly on December 20, 2016; Dunlap appealed and received a trial de novo in Tarrant County Court at Law No. 1.
- County court again awarded possession to Beauly on February 10, 2017; Dunlap appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- Dunlap (pro se) argued the foreclosure was irregular (challenging the substitute trustee appointment) and claimed the trial court lacked jurisdiction; she also filed motions she characterized as summary-judgment motions shortly before trial.
- Beauly argued justice and county courts had jurisdiction because the deed of trust created a tenancy-at-sufferance on foreclosure, and summary-judgment motions were not properly noticed for hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dunlap) | Defendant's Argument (Beauly) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the justice court (and on appeal the county court) had jurisdiction to decide possession after foreclosure | Foreclosure was irregular (substitute trustee not properly appointed), so courts lacked jurisdiction to decide possession | Justice and county courts have jurisdiction to determine right of immediate possession when deed of trust creates tenancy-at-sufferance; title/foreclosure defects are not adjudicated in forcible detainer | Courts had jurisdiction; deed of trust created tenancy-at-sufferance and title/foreclosure defects are outside forcible-detainer scope |
| Whether Beauly had standing to bring forcible detainer | (Implicit) Foreclosure defects defeat Beauly’s claim to possession | Beauly produced substitute trustee’s deed and deed of trust showing ownership and tenancy-at-sufferance; standing established for possession dispute | Beauly had standing based on the trustee’s deed; sufficient to litigate immediate possession |
| Whether the trial court was required to decide Dunlap’s motion(s) for summary judgment before trial | Dunlap argued the court should have granted/decided her summary-judgment motion(s) | Dunlap’s motions were not properly noticed for hearing (no 21-day notice); issues were waived on appeal for inadequate briefing | Motion(s) for summary judgment were not properly before the court; argument waived for inadequate briefing; trial properly proceeded |
| Whether alleged defects in foreclosure can be considered in a forcible detainer action | Foreclosure defects negate Beauly’s right to possession | Forcible detainer is limited to right of immediate possession; foreclosure defects must be litigated in separate actions (e.g., to set aside sale) | Foreclosure defects may not be considered in forcible detainer; only possession, not title, is decided |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001) (forcible detainer addresses only right to immediate possession, not title)
- Marshall v. Housing Authority of City of El Paso, 198 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. 2006) (forcible detainer is a speedy, summary remedy focused on possession)
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (jurisdictional facts may be resolved with relevant evidence; standard for plea to jurisdiction)
- State Bar of Texas v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243 (Tex. 1994) (components of subject-matter jurisdiction and inquiry)
- Murphey v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 199 S.W.3d 441 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (foreclosure purchaser’s rights to possession can be enforced via forcible detainer; title challenges belong in separate suits)