EVICTION SUITS MUST BE FILED IN JUSTICE COURT BUT ARE SUBJECT TO AUTOMATIC APPEAL TO COUNTY COURT

San Antonio Eviction Lawyer - Bexar County Eviction Attorney - Trey Wilson Attorney in San Antonio, Texas wrote:

A relatively new series of rules located within Chapter 500 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure govern all claims filed in the Justice Courts. Among the different classes of claims are eviction or "forcible entry and detainer" suits.

Section 24.004(a) of the Texas Property Code provides that exclusive jurisdiction for eviction suits lies in the Justice Courts:

Except as provided by Subsection (b), a justice court in the precinct in which the real property is located has jurisdiction in eviction suits. Eviction suits include forcible entry and detainer and forcible detainer suits. A justice court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession under Sections 24.0054(a), (a-2), and (a-3).

Given this jurisdictional requirement, (which is also reflected in Section 27.031(a)(2) of the Texas Government Code) eviction suits must originate and be filed in the Justice Court in the County and precinct where the rental or other contested property is located.

However, unlike most other types of lawsuits, evictions (and other small claims proceedings) are subject to an automatic appeal to the County Court. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 510.9(a) provides:

A party may appeal a judgment in an eviction case by filing a bond, making a cash deposit, or filing a sworn statement of inability to pay with the justice court within 5 days after the judgment is signed.

By law, these appeals are de novo, meaning "new" or "as if the trial in the Justice Court never occurred." TRCP 510.10(c) provides:

The case must be tried de novo in the county court. A trial de novo is a new trial in which the entire case is presented as if there had been no previous trial. The trial, as well as any hearings and motions, is entitled to precedence in the county court. 

In practical terms, the above means that:

• All eviction suits must originally be filed in Justice Court;
• Either party to a Judgement entered by the Justice Court may appeal by following specified procedures;
• The appeal is taken to the County Court sitting in the same county as the Justice Court being appealed-from;
• Trial in the County Court is "new," and the evidence, testimony and Judgment arising from the original Justice Court proceeding are irrelevant.

Whether a Tenant or Landlord, You Never Want to See This on Your Door!

San Antonio Eviction Lawyer - Bexar County Eviction Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:

Whether you're a Landlord or a Tenant in San Antonio, having a notice like this posted on your door by the Bexar County Sheriff means that your eviction lawsuit has not ended peacefully. 

Texas Property Code Section 24.0061 entitles a landlord who prevails in an eviction suit to a Writ of Possession, and requires that such writ order the officer executing it to:

(1) post a written warning of at least 8-1/2 by 11 inches on the exterior of the front door of the rental unit notifying the tenant that the writ has been issued and that the writ will be executed on or after a specific date and time stated in the warning not sooner than 24 hours after the warning is posted; and

(2) when the writ is executed:

(A) deliver possession of the premises to the landlord;

(B) instruct the tenant and all persons claiming under the tenant to leave the premises immediately, and, if the persons fail to comply, physically remove them;

(C) instruct the tenant to remove or to allow the landlord, the landlord's representatives, or other persons acting under the officer's supervision to remove all personal property from the rental unit other than personal property claimed to be owned by the landlord; and

(D) place, or have an authorized person place, the removed personal property outside the rental unit at a nearby location, but not blocking a public sidewalk, passageway, or street and not while it is raining, sleeting, or snowing.

Fourth Court of Appeals upholds Eviction Judgment

San Antonio Eviction Lawyer - Bexar County Eviction Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:

On January 8, 2014, the San Antonio Court of Appeals upheld a Judgment of Eviction (and accompanying award of attorneys' fees) originally entered by the Bexar County Court at Law No. 10.

In the appeal to the Fourth Court, the Tenant alleged that the trial court erred in the case (which was an appeal to CCL of the Judgment of a Justice Court) in calculating the amount of unpaid rent, and in failing to find that Landlord violated a statute pertaining to a landlord’s duty to repair or remedy conditions and a statute prohibiting retaliation.

The Court reviewed the record from the trial court, noted the absence of Findings of Fact, and affirmed the Judgment. The Opinion can be read HERE

Eviction Suit May Proceed Simultaneously with District Court Suit to Resolve Title

San Antonio Eviction Lawyer - Bexar County Eviction Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:

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. 

By Popular Demand: LINK TO NEW TEXAS EVICTION RULES

San Antonio Eviction Lawyer - Bexar County Eviction Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:

As I have written before, a new set of Rules of Procedure apply in Texas eviction cases (as of 8/31/13).  The Rules typically apply to all cases pending and/or filed on or after 8/31/13.

Here is a link to the new Rules.

Eviction/Lease Dispute Breeds Multiple Litigations and New Ruling

San Antonio Eviction Lawyer - Bexar County Eviction Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:

Today the Fourth Court of Appeals issued a Memorandum Opinion in an ongoing lease termination dispute and related eviction proceedings that have bred numerous suits, appeals and litigations.  In its opinion, the San Antonio Court summarized the litigation saga as follows: "Over the past three years, the landlord/tenant dispute between these parties has given rise to two forcible detainer proceedings, one declaratory judgment action, and one still-pending appeal to this court." 

The issue decided today related to an appeal by Official Inspection Station, Inc. of a forcible entry & detainer (eviction) suit filed and won by AAA Free Move Ministorage, LLC following earlier forcible entry & detainer and declaratory judgment suits won by OIS, and for which OIS was awarded a money judgment.

The broader dispute relates to OIS' right of possession (and AAA's right of termination) under a written lease entered by and between OIS and the previous owners of the premises bought by AAA in August 2009. When AAA tried to terminate under that lease, OIS filed a declaratory judgment action against AAA in Bexar County District Court, asking the court to construe the rental agreement and declare that AAA did not have the right to terminate the lease on six months’ notice and that OIS was properly in possession of the property.

In March 2010, while the declaratory judgment action was still pending, AAA filed a “Complaint for Eviction” against OIS in the  Bexar County justice of the peace court because OIS refused to vacate the property. The court later entered a take-nothing judgment against AAA (essentially denying AAA's demand for possession). AAA appealed to county court at law, and following a trial de novo, the county court rendered a take-nothing judgment against AAA, awarding OIS attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $13,362.12. 

With its favorable county court judgment in hand, OIS stopped making payments, and instead, “credited” AAA on OIS’s books with the judgment AAA owed to OIS against the amount of the rent OIS owed AAA.  Thereafter, AAA filed a second eviction suit, which it won at the JP court and on de novo appeal to the Bexar County Court at law.  OIS appealed to the 4th Court, arguing that its non-payment of rent was excused by the Judgment owed to it by AAA.  The Court of Appeals disagreed, and ruled, inter alia, that the lower court's finding that  OIS was in default under the lease because it did not continue paying rent, and instead, unilaterally applied its offset.

Notably, the Opinion issued today is not the final word. An appeal of the declaratory judgment action is apparently also pending with the Fourth Court of Appeals.

New Eviction Rules to Take Effect Tomorrow - 8/31/13 Get a copy here

San Antonio Eviction Lawyer - Bexar County Eviction Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:

Effective on Saturday, 8/31/13, a new set of eviction rules formulated by the Texas Supreme Court will become effective. 

The new Rules will apply to all eviction cases filed in Texas on or after 8/31 AND cases pending on 8/31 (unless applying the new Rules would work "injustice").

Prior Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 737-755 have been ABOLISHED, and New Rules 500-507 and especially 510 (the Eviction-specific Rule) will govern all eviction/FE&D cases.

I recently made a presentation to the San Antonio Chapter of the National Association of Residential Property Managers concerning the specifics of the new Rules. I anticipate that the powerpoint presentation I furnished in connection with that presentation will be posted on their site. If and when that happens, I will post a link on this page.

A full copy of the new Texas Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to ALL Justice Court cases (not just evictions) can be found HERE.

San Antonio Eviction Lawyer - Bexar County Eviction Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:

This is an interesting concept from Dave Ramsey. I have handled numerous evictions where a non-paying tenant causes an Owner to default on his mortgage.

Why Defects in the Premises Are Usually Not a Good Defense for Tenants Facing Eviction

San Antonio Eviction Lawyer - Bexar County Eviction Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:

Frequently, tenants facing eviction will show up to Court with a litany of reasons why their failure to pay rent should be excused, and why they should be allowed to remain in the premises despite this default.  The argument usually goes something like this:

COURT:  Is it true, Mr. or Mrs. Tenant, that you have not paid rent in 3 months?

TENANT:  Well yes, but I have good cause.

COURT:  And what cause is that?

TENANT:  It's because the sink / toilet/ door / air conditioner/ (you get it) isn't working and I was told it would be fixed but it never was.  * Another common variant is that the carpet stinks or their is some insect infestation in the property*

COURT:  Did you ask the Landlord in writing to to fix the condition?

TENANT:  Well no, but I called four times and they never answer when I call /  Well no, but the Landlord knows it's broken/  No, but I was going to before I got served with a Notice to Vacate (

COURT:  Did you have the condition repaired?

TENANT:  No, but I have pictures to show you of how horrible the place is.

COURT:  I'm sorry but you are not excused from paying rent and I have no choice but to grant the Landlord's eviction request.

TENANT:  You didn't even look at my pictures / repair estimate/ dirty air filter.

At this point the freshly-evicted tenant usually storms off in a fit of anger, gets very emotional, threatens appeal, or does all 3.

In this situation, the Court cannot consider the Tenant's allegations about the condition of the property. This is because the only issue in an eviction suit (forcible entry & detainer action) is the right to actual possession of the premises. See Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 746.

While a Landlord's failure to keep the premises in a habitable condition may be a breach of the Lease, this breach is not the proper subject of an eviction suit.

Further, if a perceived defective condition of the premises does not has not been brought to the Landlord's attention in writing, and the Tenant has not (after sufficient notice and time) repaired the condition, that defective condition does not give rise to any affirmative defense that would excuse paying rent.

While the law (Chapter 24 of the Texas Property Code) does provide for certain "repair and deduct" remedies for the Tenant in certain instances, the procedure for implicating these remedies must be strictly complied with. Unless and until strict compliance has been demonstrated, the Landlord's perceived bad acts in maintaining the premises is not a good (or even feasible) defense for tenants facing eviction in Texas.

Bexar County Soon to Get Two New JPs

San Antonio Eviction Lawyer Trey Wilson wrote:

Bexar County is on the verge of getting two new Justices of the Peace. By law, the Justice Court Judges, affectionately known as "JPs" have exclusive jurisdiction over eviction suits.  The two new JPs will serve in Precincts 2 and 3, respectively.

In Precinct 2, the incumbent Judge, Stephen Walker, didn't prevail in the Democratic primary, and will, therefore, not stand for re-election. His Precinct 2, Place 1 bench will go to a new Judge.

In Precinct 3, long-time JP Keith Baker will be retiring at the end of this year. Bexar County is  now accepting applications for his position, and a replacement will be appointed by the Bexar County Commissioners Court.

The individuals who fill these benches will largely change the evictions landscape in San Antonio.

Notice to Vacate is an Essential Component of a Successful Eviction

San Antonio & Bexar County Eviction Lawyer Trey Wilson wrote:

An essential element of any eviction proceeding is strict compliance with the statutorily-required notice to vacate before filing the forcible-detainer action. See Tex. Prop. Code  § 24.002(b); § 24.005. 

Issuance and delivery of a properly drafted notice to vacate is  required by statute, and, is  therefore  "mandatory and exclusive and must be complied with in all respects"  Employees Ret. Sys. of Tex. v. Blount, 709 S.W.2d 646, 647 (Tex. 1986).  In fact, delivery of a statutorily- sufficient written demand for possession is an essential element of forcible detainer, without which, a valid eviction Judgment cannot be issued. Murphy v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 199 S.W.3d 441, 445 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. deniedThus, the very first step in any eviction proceeding is the ); Kennedy v. Andover Place Apartments, 203 S.W.3d 495, 497 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (landlord must strictly comply with section 24.002 requirements which state that landlord must make written demand for possession in compliance with section 24.005 requirements for notice to vacate).

Thus, the very FIRST STEP in any eviction proceeding is delivery of a properly drafted NOTICE TO VACATE, which complies with all requirements of section 24.005 of the Texas Property Code. Failure to meet any of the requirements of the Notice -- or the manner of delivery -- can result in the dismissal of the eviction suit.

Collecting on Money Awards in Eviction Judgments

San Antonio & Bexar County Eviction Lawyer Trey Wilson wrote:

Frequently, the prevailing Landlord in an eviction suit is awarded a money Judgment in addition to possession of the premises.  Justice Courts routinely award a prevailing Landlord liquidated cash sums for past-due rent, court costs, and (where applicable), attorneys' fees.  See Tex. Prop. Code § 24.006.  But are these money Judgments worth the paper they're written on?

It is a reasonable assumption that a Tenant who has just been evicted for failing to pay rent usually isn't sitting on a pile of cash or other assets that can be used to satisfy a money Judgment.  For this reason, Landlords usually "give up" and ignore the cash portion of eviction Judgments.  After all, it makes little sense to pursue collection of a Judgment from somebody you couldn't even collect rent from. But will this always be the case?????

My experience and observation over the course of conducting countless evictions has been that Tenants facing eviction have an "exit strategy" well before their court date.  It's no secret that moving is expensive.  There are security deposits, application fees, utility deposits, and the costs of moving, itself (movers/U-Haul rental, etc.).  Often this is where the money that would have been a Landlord's rent is allocated once eviction becomes inevitable. 

The good news is that eviction Judgments become final -- and, thus, subject to collection -- quickly.  Unlike Judgments from "higher" courts, which usually aren't final for 30 days after they're signed, Justice Court Judgments in eviction cases become final after 5 days (unless appealed).  A diligent Landlord will attempt to collect upon an eviction Judgment promptly after it becomes final.

There are cheap and easy steps by which to pursue collection. Here are just a few suggestions:

• Abstract the Judgment with the County Clerk.  An Abstract is the first step in the collection process, and is a mechanism by which to record the Judgment in the Official Public Records of the County -- right where deeds, liens and other real property records are recorded.  The filing fees for Abstracts are nominal, and you might be surprised when the Abstract shows-up in the Tenant's unrelated efforts to obtain credit (such as when attempting to buy a house or obtain a job).
• Report the Judgment to a credit reporting agency.  Dealing with the "Big 3" is tough, but many communities have local credit reporting agencies. In San Antonio,  SARMA maintains a database of eviction Judgments. Filing the Judgment with them could result in your former Tenant being denied in his efforts to locate a new residence.
• Hire an attorney to perform limited collection activity, such as writing a demand letter, issuing post-judgment discovery, and possibly performing an asset-check or deposition in aid of collection.

You might be surprised at how a former Tenant reacts (and steps-up) when he learns that he can't just walk-away from your eviction suit.

Failure to Install Door Security Devices Not Always a Valid Defense in Eviction Suits

San Antonio & Bexar County Eviction Lawyer Trey Wilson wrote:

Tenants facing eviction for non-payment of rent frequently assert defenses based upon a Landlord’s failure to install security devices.  These defenses, even when factually-true, are effective only in limited circumstances, and should not automatically cause a Landlord to retreat from the position that rent is due.

Texas law does require landlords to install keyless bolting devices on the exterior doors of rental premises. See Tex. Prop. Code § 92.157. When demanded by Tenants in writing, a Landlord’s failure to install keyless bolting devices can also result in Landlord liability. See Tex. Prop. §§ 92.153, 92.164. However, Tenants facing eviction for non-payment must have “clean hands,” and cannot manufacture a “failure to install-defense” after the time that they are in default of their own obligations under a Lease. 

Stated differently, a Tenant who has breached the lease by failing to fully pay their rent before the date they request the installation of keyless bolting devices generally has no claim for the Landlord’s failure to install the device. This is because the Texas Property Code allows the antecedent breach of the lease to serve as a defense to the demand for the installation of security devices. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 92.1641.

Thus, when a Tenant makes their request to install a keyless bolting device at a time when they have not paid all then-due rent, a Landlord may deem the Tenant in default and escape liability for failure to install.

Of course, prudence dictates that a conscientious Landlord honors all requests for installation of keyless bolting devices. Nevertheless, a non-paying tenant’s untimely assertion of the “failure to install defense” is rarely successful in an eviction proceeding before the Justice Courts.

Eviction Leads to Fugitive's Arrest

San Antonio Eviction Lawyer Trey Wilson wrote:

Deputies with the Cecil County, MD Sheriff's Office stumbled upon a fugitive while providing security during a landlord's eviction of a tenant. Apparently, the tenant had allowed the fugitive to live there.

After receiving a tip from federal agents, investigators with the Cecil County Sheriff's Office captured Henry Joseph Harper Holder, 34. Holder is an alleged drug dealer wanted by the U.S. Marshals Office. Holder is wanted in Newport News, Va., where he is facing numerous drug charges, including manufacturing controlled dangerous substances and possession of morphine.

The events leading to Holder's capture started on Thursday morning when deputies provided security in the 100 block of Willow Drive for a scheduled eviction. "This is something we do when there is a scheduled eviction. It's to prevent anyone from interfering while the landlord is removing (the tenant's) property."

After the eviction, an agent with the U.S. Marshals Office called sheriff's investigators and reported that Holder had been living at the home where the eviction had taken place, police said. The agent, who provided other tips, too, asked investigators to arrest Holder, police added.

No Writs Out of JP 2 During the Christmas Season!

San Antonio Eviction Lawyer Trey Wilson wrote:

This sign was posted at JP Precinct 2 today!

Spanish Cemetery Warns of Evictions for Nonpayment

MADRID – Pushed for space, a Spanish cemetery has begun placing stickers on thousands of burial sites whose leases are up as a warning to relatives or caretakers to pay up or face possible eviction.

Jose Abadia, deputy urban planning manager for northern Zaragoza city said Monday the city's Torrero municipal graveyard had removed remains from some 420 crypts in recent months and removed them to a common burial ground.

Torrero, like many Spanish cemeteries, no longer allows people to buy grave sites. It instead leases them out for periods of five or 49 years.

Abadia said the cases involved graves whose leases had not been renewed for 15 years or more.

He said Torrero currently had some 7,000 burial sites with lapsed leases out of a total of some 114,000.

Copied from Fox News

Trial of Texas Eviction Suits by Jury

San Antonio Eviction Lawyer Trey Wilson wrote:

Although somewhat rare, trial by jury is available in all Texas eviction suits.

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 744 expressly grants either party to an eviction suit the right of trial by jury. To exercise this right, a jury demand must be timely made and a jury fee must be paid. The Rule prescribes the time for making the jury demand as "on or before five days from the date the defendant is served with citation." Once a request is timely made, and the fee paid, a jury is summoned, and eventually selected by the parties using an abbreviated voir dire process.

While I have handled numerous evictions on behalf of Texas landlords, I have never requested a jury trial in an eviction case. This is primarily because I believe that the Justice Court Judges / Justices of the Peace generally possess the wisdom, impartiality and command of the law to promptly and fairly decide FE & D suits. This is especially true in Bexar County, where most of our JPs are licensed attorneys.

Nevertheless, I have tried eviction suits to a jury in those instances where the tenant has demanded a jury trial. Although jurors are generally wise once they hear the facts of the case, my experience is that prospective jurors are frequently tainted by their negative landlord-tenant experiences. In addition, jury trials take significantly longer than bench trials (trial by Judge).

When strategizing for trial in an eviction suit, one should not overlook the right to trial by jury, and the implications of an exercise of that right.

Proper Notice to Vacate is Essential for Eviction Success

San Antonio Eviction Lawyer Trey Wilson wrote:

Most landlords are understandably reluctant to hire a lawyer to deal with a problem tenant. Many times, the tenant is already not paying rent, and the landlord is losing money by the day. Naturally, hiring a lawyer only adds to the Lessor's expense, and exacerbates the non-producing character of a rental property.

For this exact reason, many landlords come to me as a final straw, and only after they have done everything in their power to handle the tenant themselves. Frequently, Landlords have already sent or delivered to the Tenant a "homemade" Notice to Vacate or Notice to Quit. Unfortunately, in many instances, the Notice is defective, or was delivered in a manner that fails to comply with the strict requirements of the Texas Property Code. When this occurs, the process is delayed, so that I may provide proper notice to the tenant within the time required by law.

Failure to provide a tenant with a notice to vacate that contains the required warnings, or delivering the notice in a manner other than prescribed by law can be fatal to an eviction suit. Bexar County Judges frequently dismiss FE & D suits based upon improper Notices to Vacate. Dismissal results in the landlord having to restart the entire process, resulting in further delay, expense, and financial loss.

Because a landlord's success in an eviction suit is dependent upon the proper drafting, delivery and timing of a written Notice to Vacate, the importance of getting the Notice right should not be overlooked. If a landlord/lessor has doubts about the requisites of Notice, he should contact a lawyer experienced with evictions in the Justice Courts.

Issues in Texas Eviction Suits are Limited to Possession and Rent

San Antonio Eviction Lawyer Trey Wilson wrote:

Despite the frequent desire of both landlords and tenants to make eviction cases about "bigger and broader" disputes, Texas law limits the scope of issues that may be presented to the Court in Forcible Entry & Detainer ("FE & D")suits.

Specifically, two Rules contained in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provide express limits on what matters an eviction court may consider. Rule 746 states that in forcible entry cases and forcible detainer cases, the only issue "shall be as to the right of actual possession." However, Rule 738 provides that a "suit for rent" may be joined with an FE & D action "whenever the suit for rent is within the jurisdiction of the justice court."

Because of these specific limitations on the topics within the Justice Court's jurisdiction in an eviction lawsuit, Bexar County Judges will generally not permit testimony about collateral issues such as whether a landlord has failed to repair certain items, the condiction of the rental property, or the tenant's hygine and living conditions. While these matters may be relevant to the overall dispute between the landlord and tenant, they are required to be brought in a separate suit in a Court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Writ of Possession in the Bexar County Justice Courts

After the rendition of a Judgfment of Eviction, either party (landlord or tenant) has five (5) calendar days to appeal the judgment to the County Court at Law. Appeal of a Justice Court's eviction Judgment may be perfected by filing a Notice of Appeal and Appeal Bond with the Justice Court. Upon proper perfection of the appeal, the Clerk of the Justice Court will transfer the Court's file to the County Clerk, who will assign a new cause number to the suit.

If no appeal is filed, and the tenant has not vacated the premises within five (5) calendar days from the date of the judgment, the plaintiff/landlord may obtain a Writ of Possession to legally remove all of the tenant's personal property from the premises. A Writ of Possession is executed by the Constable’s Office. However, the Constable does not represent the landlord or the tenant, and will remain on the premises solely as a keeper of peace to see that the writ is executed according to law. The physical removal of all property will be made by the landlord or their designated personnel.