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.