Tony R. Jimenez and Cynthia L. Jimenez v. Federal National Mortgage Association
02-15-00229-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 16, 2015Background
- No. 2014-005741-1, Federal National Mortgage Association v. Tony R. Jimenez and Cynthia L. Jimenez and occupants, in County Court at Law No. 1, Tarrant County, Texas.
- Defendants moved for a new trial after a judgment entered around April 14, 2015, seeking relief in the interest of justice.
- Defendants argue the motion for new trial is permissible and the judgment is non-final for purposes of writs of possession.
- Plaintiff asserts tenancy-based rights under the Deed of Trust and its ability to obtain immediate possession.
- The court discusses pleading validity, executive authority of plaintiff’s officers, and the propriety of foreclosure/forcible detainer procedures under Rule 510.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a motion for new trial permissible in this forcible detainer context? | Jimenezs argue TRCP allows it; cites Shaw v. Shaw. | Jimenezs contend new-trial motion is allowed and necessary for justice. | Permissible; motion recognized under TRCP. |
| Can a writ of possession issue when the judgment is not final due to a pending motion for new trial? | Writs may issue after final judgment; execution requires finality. | Writs can issue pre-final in forcible detainer; finality not strictly required here. | No final judgment to support a writ while a new-trial motion is pending; writ cannot issue. |
| Did the petition’s failure to be sworn by an authorized plaintiff officer require abatement/dismissal or invalidate the judgment? | Pleading validity supports judgment despite issues. | Petition not sworn by plaintiff; officer authority required; invalid pleading warrants abatement or dismissal. | Judgment should be set aside; pleading defective and not curable; abate/dismiss warranted. |
| Does plaintiff have standing to rely on the Deed of Trust tenancy language to claim immediate possession? | Plaintiff has superior right via Deed of Trust tenancy language. | Plaintiff was not beneficiary or grantor; no basis to rely on tenancy language. | Plaintiff lacked standing; judgment invalid; warrant abatement or dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Emeritus Corp., 179 S.W.3d 112 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005) (rules of procedure interpreted as statutes; plain meaning governs)
- In re Christus Spohn Hospital Kleberg, 222 S.W.3d 434 (Tex. 2007) (rules of procedure interpreted by same construction as statutes)
- Murphy v. Friendswood Dev. Co., 965 S.W.2d 708 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (interpretation of procedural rules requires literal meaning)
- Hinde v. Hinde, 701 S.W.2d 637 (Tex. 1985) (final judgment required for writ of execution)
- Williams v. Masterson, 306 S.W.2d 152 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1957) (execution includes writs of possession)
- Re General Motors Acceptance Corp., No. 13-08-474-CV (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2008) (forcible detainer writs and finality considerations)
- Conroy v. Manos, 679 S.W.2d 124 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1984) (execution generally after judgment; interplay with finality)
- BASF Fina Petrochemicals Ltd. v. H.B. Zachry, 168 S.W.3d 867 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (rule interpretation and construction principles)