Washington v. Related Arbor Court, LLC
357 S.W.3d 676
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Diana Washington was a tenant at Related Arbor Court, LLC's Section 8 housing project in Houston, Texas.
- Arbor Court filed a forcible-detainer action for eviction based on multiple lease-violation grounds, including non-payment of rent and management-tort allegations.
- Washington received a hand-delivered lease-termination notice on January 14, 2010, requiring vacatur within ten days and listing several grounds for eviction.
- A January 26, 2010 notice to vacate demanded vacatur within three days after Washington allegedly failed to comply.
- Washington did not vacate; the justice court and later the county court at law entered judgments for possession.
- Washington challenged (i) whether Arbor Court mailed a federally required lease-termination notice and (ii) whether attorney’s fees were properly awarded under Tex. Prop. Code § 24.006; the appellate court sustained the second issue and modified the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was notice properly served under 24 C.F.R. § 247.4? | Washington contends no proof of mailed notice exists. | Arbor Court asserts hand-delivery suffices and mailed notice was corroborated by labels. | No harm from lack of mailed notice; actual notice sufficed. |
| Did notices satisfy § 24.006 to award attorney's fees? | Washington argues notices failed to meet § 24.006 prerequisites for fees. | Arbor Court contends notices implicitly satisfied the statute. | Attorney's-fees award reversed; notices fail § 24.006 requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nealy v. Southlawn Palms Apartments, 196 S.W.3d 386 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (harm analysis applied to notice deficiencies in federally subsidized leases)
- Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) (statutory notice provisions may be non-jurisdictional; focus on harm)
- Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. 2011) (acknowledgement of receipt can satisfy notice requirements)
- Goforth v. Bradshaw, 296 S.W.3d 849 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2009) (timely service by regular mail may satisfy requirements if acknowledged)
- Spiegel v. Strother, 262 S.W.3d 481 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2008) (timeliness of expert reports when recipient acknowledges receipt)
- Netherland v. Wittner, 662 S.W.2d 786 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1983) (proper notice delivered despite noncompliant method if consent and appearance occur)
- Hill v. W.E. Brittain, Inc., 405 S.W.2d 803 (Tex.Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1966) (waiver of notice defects when appellant appears and participates)
- Parr v. Leal ex rel. Duval County, 290 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.Civ. App.-San Antonio 1956) (admission of timely delivery suffices despite formal requirements)
- Kennedy v. Andover Place Apartments, 203 S.W.3d 495 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (addressing automatic-renewal defense and possession rights)