San Antonio Apartment Tenants told to stop paying rent, then to Vacate?

San Antonio Eviction Lawyer - Bexar County Eviction Attorney -- Trey Wilson San Antonio wrote: Here's an interesting eviction/ landlord-tenant story from KSAT.com

Tenants instructed to stop paying rent being forced from apartments

SAN ANTONIO - South Point Oaks Apartments residents are baffled about the future of their living situation after receiving notices the residential property has been sold and that they must leave.

“It's where I call home for right now,” said James Prince, who has lived at the apartments near Loop 410 and Babcock Road for three years.

On May 7, tenants received a notice from Fairway Properties saying the apartments had changed ownership. The letter instructed residents to “refrain from paying rent to anyone until you receive a notice from the new owner or management company.”

On May 24, tenants received an eviction notice stating they had 72 hours to leave.

“Three weeks ago you tell us stop paying rent and we don't pay rent,” said Prince. “Now you're telling us we have to leave."

Read the full story HERE

What is the Statute of Limitations Period Within Which A Landlord Must Bring An Eviction Case in Texas?

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

Let's face it... some tenants deserving of eviction are allowed to remain in a given rental property for far longer than they should. Often they remain in place even after being served with a Notice to Vacate by either simply ignoring the notice and/or refusing to surrender possession of the property despite a landlord's demand that they do so.  From a logical standpoint, a landlord's inaction over a sufficient period of time should constitute a waiver of the right to pursue an eviction (FE &D) action, as the result of being time-barred.

After all, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 16.003 provides that a forcible detainer suit must be brought within two years, or, more succinctly, "not later than two years after the date the cause of action accrues." See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a). Thus, there exists a 2 year limitations period on FE & D/eviction suits.   However, this 2 year period BEGINS to run-on the date of accrual. As such, an event of "accrual" is the determinitive factor in considering the expiration of the limitations period for an eviction (and any other cause of action, for that matter).  

Notably, Texas Courts have held that a forcible-detainer action accrues each time a person refuses to surrender possession of real property after a person entitled to possession of the property delivers a proper written notice to vacate. See Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Pham, No. 14-13-00109-CV,

2014 WL 5034638, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 9, 2014, no pet.) (new and independent cause of action for forcible detainer arises each time person refuses to surrender real property after person entitled to possession delivers proper written notice to vacate); Puentes v. Fannie Mae, 350 S.W.3d 732, 739 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, pet. dism’d) (subsequent forcible detainer action constitutes new and independent action to determine which party had superior right of immediate possession at time suit was filed).

Thus, under Tex. Prop. Code § 24.002 (defining a forcible detainer as a refusal to surrender possession of real property on demand...), each refusal to surrender possession of real property on written demand for possession constitutes a new forcible detainer.

Under a plain application of how Courts determine "accrual" of a landlord's claim for FE & D, it is clear that in order to start the limitations period anew (and avoid being time-barred from filing suit), an owner or landlord must simply issue a new Notice to Vacate that complies with Tex. Civ. Prop. Code § 24.005.  Each time that the tenant refuses to comply with such a notice by surrendering possession as demanded by the landlord, that tenant is subject to an FE & D suit, notwithstanding the passage of time from prior notices.

Eviction Lawsuits in San Antonio, Texas

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

If a tenant refuses to surrender possession of real property after a proper, written demand for possession by one entitled to such possession, the tenant commits a forcible detainer. TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.002 (West 2000); see Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp., 417 S.W.3d 909, 915 (Tex. 2013); Kennedy v. Andover Place Apartments, 203 S.W.3d 495, 497 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.). 

The purpose of a forcible detainer action (also known as an eviction lawsuit) is to determine who has the right to possession of the premises. Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 785 (Tex. 2006); McGlothlin v. Kliebert, 672 S.W.2d 231, 232 (Tex. 1984). By law, a forcible detainer action must be filed in the Justice Court in the County and precinct in which the property is located.

“To prevail in a forcible detainer action, . . . the plaintiff must present sufficient evidence of ownership to demonstrate a superior right to immediate possession.” Dormady v. Dinero Land & Cattle Co., L.C., 61 S.W.3d 555, 557 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); accord Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705, 709 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.). 

A plaintiff may demonstrate its superior right to possession by showing it is entitled to evict the tenant for cause, such as under the terms of the lease. See Hinojosa v. Hous. Auth. of Laredo, 940 S.W.2d 763, 765–66 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no writ); Barajas v. Hous. Auth. of Harlingen, 882 S.W.2d 853, 855–56 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1994, no writ). In addition, a Plaintiff may demonstrate his ownership and right to possession by presenting a deed reflecting title to the property.

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.

Can a Property Manager Represent a Landlord in an Eviction Lawsuit?

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

***THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS POST HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY NEW TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 500.4, EFFECTIVE 8/31/13.**** 

San Antonio Texas Real Estate Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:

Many Texas residential property managers offer eviction-related services to their owner-clients. Frequently, these services are  limited to issuing Notices to Vacate/ Notices to Quit and rent demand letters, occasionally, a tenant will require a Court order  before he or she vacates a rental premises. When this occurs, it is important to understand the parameters within which non-lawyer property managers in Texas can represent their owner-clients' interests in Court.

Generally, only a licensed attorney can represent another person's, or any corporation's, interests in court in Texas.  See Section 83.001(a) of the Texas Government Code, which  prohibits a person, other than a member of the state bar from practicing law.  

However, an exception to this general rule exists in connection with some types of  EVICTION cases filed in the JUSTICE COURTS. This exception is found in two separate places in the law:

Texas Property Code Sec. 24.011.  NONLAWYER REPRESENTATION. In eviction suits in justice court for nonpayment of rent or holding over beyond a rental term, the parties may represent themselves or be represented by their authorized agents, who need not be attorneys. In any eviction suit in justice court, an authorized agent requesting or obtaining a default judgment need not be an attorney.

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: RULE 747a. REPRESENTATION BY AGENTS. In forcible entry and detainer cases for non-payment of rent or holding over beyond the rental term, the parties may represent themselves, or be represented by their authorized agents in justice courts.

In all other types of eviction cases (i.e. non-monetary defaults or breach of Lease cases, the Owner can represent him/herself, but he/she cannot be represented by a property manager, unless that manager is also a licensed attorney.  

Further, because an appeal of a Judgment entered in an eviction suit is taken to the County Court at Law, a non-lawyer may not represent the owner's interests on appeal.

As with any power, just because you "have" it, does not always mean you should exercise it. Whether a manager hires an attorney in the early stage of the eviction process, versus saving the funds and attempting to prosecute an eviction themselves, is one that should be made after careful deliberation, and on a case-by-case basis.