Some tenants facing eviction (and their lawyers) are savvy and all-too-familiar with the tricks of the trade that can be wielded to delay and obstruct a landlord's recovery of possession of a rental property.
One of the most frequently employed methods of subverting an eviction proceeding is the assertion by a tenant of a "title dispute" concerning the rental premises. In these cases, the tenant or occupant will allege -- often in very general and ambiguous terms -- that he or she maintains some type of ownership interest in the rental premises. Such claims to title most frequently arise in those circumstances where there exists no written lease, and there is a special relationship (family, romantic, employer/employee, etc.) between the record title owner (the landlord) and the person facing eviction (the tenant).
In some cases, the tenant will respond to the eviction suit (filed by the landlord in Justice Court) by filing a new suit in District Court alleging some claim to title. By doing this, a tenant ostensibly creates an "issue of title" to the property made the subject of the eviction proceeding.
Under Texas law, a Justice Court lacks the jurisdiction to resolve title disputes or make any determinations of title/ownership of real property. Accordingly, the tenant will appear at the eviction trial and argue that the Justice Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed because title is at issue.
This strategy used to be very effective, and has derailed many eviction proceedings because most judges are very careful not to exceed their jurisdiction. However, like most other legal ploys and dilatory tactics, the fabricated "issue of title" strategy has been overplayed by tenants, and decisions from Texas courts of appeals have served to limit the effectiveness of this argument.
Since at least 2001, Texas courts have recognized that every assertion of a title dispute by a tenant does not divest the Justice Court of jurisdiction to determine rights of possession through an eviction Judgment. The "granddaddy" case discussing the dichotomy of title vs. possession is Rice vs. Pinney, which arises out of the Dallas, Texas (5th) Court of Appeals.
In Rice, and in several subsequent cases (from various Texas courts of appeals) that follow its holding, the Court held that not all cases require a Justice Court to determine title in order to determine the right to possession.
More succinctly, the Rice Court found that "a justice court or county court at law is not deprived of jurisdiction merely by the existence of a title dispute, but is deprived of jurisdiction only if "the right to immediate possession necessarily requires the resolution of a title dispute" and "Thus, it is only when the justice or county court must determine title issues that it is without jurisdiction to adjudicate a forcible detainer case."
Since Rice, numerous courts have determined that the right of superior possession may be resolved without determining title, and that a request for eviction can be considered (under the doctrine of "concurrent jurisdiction") even when a district court has been asked to determine title.
As stated above, judges are typically reluctant to exceed the jurisdiction conferred upon them by law. As such, a skilled attorney representing the landlord in an eviction proceeding will be prepared to educate the Justice Court judge about the holding in Rice and its progeny.
