Check Out my Video Short for San Antonio Eviction Lawyer

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

RAISING A "TITLE DISPUTE" DOESN'T ALWAYS GET TENANTS OUT OF EVICTION HOT SEAT

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

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.

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.

The Case Against the Right to Jury Trial in Texas Eviction Suits

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

Although eviction cases, like most other civil cases, include a right to jury trial, my experience has been that this right is abused more often than not by tenants seeking unwarranted delay of the inevitable. After handling hundreds of eviction trials and appeals on behalf of landlords, I am convinced that the right to trial by jury should be eliminated (or severely abridged) in eviction cases. This may not be a popular viewpoint, but I believe it has merit.

By design, eviction cases are limited, with "the entitlement to actual and immediate possession" of certain premises being the sole issue to be determined by the court. Proof of that right is established on very specific evidence, which is usually documentary in nature (a lease, deed, etc. and a written notice to vacate). Frequently, absolutely no "fact" issues exist in an eviction lawsuit. That is, the only issues to be decided at trial are issues of "law," which are to be determined by a judge.  

NOTE: Fact issues encompass matters of credibility, but not strictly legal issues, such as whether certain facts establish a claim or defense.

The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII) to the United States Constitution  codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases, and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact. The text of the 7th Amendment provides:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

 Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 510.7(b) expressly extends the right to trial by jury to eviction cases:

Any party may file a written demand for trial by jury by making a request to the court at least 3 days before the trial date. The demand must be accompanied by payment of a jury fee or by filing a sworn statement of inability to pay the jury fee. If a jury is demanded by either party, the jury will be impaneled and sworn as in other cases; and after hearing the evidence it will return its verdict in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant. If no jury is timely demanded by either party, the judge will try the case.

Thus, the law is clear: if a party to a civil eviction case timely files a request, he is entitled to trial by jury.

However, since Rule 510.7 authorizes a jury to be demanded only 3 days before trial (by contrast, Rule 216 generally requires a jury demand to be filed 30 days before trial in higher Texas courts), it is fair to say that most Texas Justice Courts cannot be prepared to impanel a jury upon such short notice. A jury demand filed only 3 days in advance invariably delays an eviction trial and allows a tenant to remain in possession of premises while the Court scrambles to summon jurors and set aside time for the lengthy process of juror selection and trial.

Since a Plaintiff (usually landlord) can request a jury at the time that the eviction case is initiated, filing a last minute jury demand is almost exclusively within the province of the defendant/tenant.    "Professional tenants" and lawyers who frequently represent tenants have been known to use jury demands solely to "buy time" during which a Defendant/tenant remains (for free) in a property which they have no legal right to possess. These tactics pervert the spirit of the 7th Amendment, and call into question the fundamental fairness of the right to jury trial in eviction cases.

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.