On occasion, a tenant believes that he has acquired an ownership interest in rental premises.
Sometimes, this belief is formed in good faith, based upon earlier negotiations with the owner/landlord about a "lease to own" arrangement or purchase option. Occasionally, an ambiguous right of the tenant to purchase the property is even contained in the parties' lease agreement. On other occasions, verbal agreements between landlords and tenants can give rise to confusion or disputes regarding ownership/title to real estate.
At other times, a tenant will -- in bad faith -- claim this his rent payments were actually purchase or "mortgage" payments based upon some non-existent agreement with the owner, or will just flat-out lie about the genesis of some purported ownership interest in real estate.
Whenever, during an eviction lawsuit (FE&D), a lessee/tenant asserts an ownership interest in rental property, this assertion can put into question the issue of rightful title to (and ownership of) the property, as opposed to the typical FE&D question of mere right to immediate possession. This is a very important distinction, the significance of which is jurisdictional!
The issue of title is one for the courts to determine. Unfortunately, however, a Texas Justice Court may not, under any circumstances (including but not limited to the context of an eviction suit), determine the issue of legal title to real property. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 27.031(b)(4). Instead, the Texas Constitution reserves jurisdiction to determine title to real property for the state district courts. See Tex. Const. art. V, § 8; Tex. Gov’t Code § 26.043(8).
The only issue to be decided by a Justice Court in an eviction case is which party has the superior right to immediate possession. See Cuellar v. Martinez, 625 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Tex. Civ. App.–San Antonio 1981, no writ), See also, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 746. NOTE: A Justice court may also award rents to a prevailing landlord.
As a result, eviction suits are sometimes halted -- and instantly at that -- whenever the tenant raises a claim that requires a determination of title to the property. However, not every claim by a tenant that he owns an interest in the rental premises deprives the Justice Court of jurisdiction to determine the issue of possession. Thus, merely asserting that there is a dispute as to title is not a tenant's "silver bullet" for stopping an eviction case by divesting the Justice Court of jurisdiction.
In most instances, an eviction suit (in the Justice Court) may proceed simultaneously with a suit to determine title (in the District court). In fact, courts have held that the Texas Legislature actually contemplated concurrent actions in district and justice courts to resolve issues of title and immediate possession, respectively. See Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705, 709 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, no pet.). Further, in most cases, the right to immediate possession can be determined separately from the right to title. See Rice, 51 S.W.3d at 710. This is true, in part, because a forcible detainer action is not exclusive, but cumulative, of any other remedy that a party may have in the courts of this State. Scott v. Hewitt, 127 Tex. 31, 90 S.W.2d 816, 818-19 (1936); Rice, 51 S.W.3d at 710.
Justice courts may adjudicate possession when issues related to the title of real property are tangentially or collaterally related to possession. See Falcon v. Ensignia, 976 S.W.2d 336, 338 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.). In fact, it is only when the question of title is "so integrally linked to the issue of possession that the right to possession cannot be determined without first determining title" that a Justice Court should decline to rule in an eviction case.
