HOUSTON – The 1st District of Texas Court of Appeals has affirmed a county court at law's judgment for possession in a case involving a church and the purchasers of a foreclosed property.
The court made the ruling Oct. 19 and dismissed the remainder of the appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction.
According to the ruling, Praise Deliverance Church brought a suit against Jelinis LLC and HREAL Co. LLC following a real estate purchase. Praise Deliverance was planning to build at 2400 Eastex Freeway in Houston. The property fell into foreclosure and was purchased by Jelinis and HREAL. The two companies attempted to evict the church from their newly acquired property but a court intervened, allowing the church to stay.
This prompted a series of legal maneuvers and eventually Jelinis LLC and HREAL Co. LLC were awarded the property.
The church appealed the decision with the arguments that the county court was limited in its ability for cross-examination of witnesses; possession was given to Jelinis and HREAL without identification of eviction guidelines; the ownership of the property that was actually served (verses where the church proper was located), and the appellate court’s overall jurisdiction in the case.
Jelinis and HREAL argued that the church’s appeal should be unheard by the court because the church no longer owned the property in question. They also cited Texas Property Code, specifically section 24.7, stating that an appeal in a case like this would be prohibited because “...on the issue of possession unless the premises in question are being used for residential purposes only,” according to the opinion.
The majority opinion was drafted by Justice Michael Massengale with Chief Justice Sherry Radack in agreement. Massengale states that the court indeed has no jurisdiction over the dispute regarding the eviction. He also quotes the Texas Property Code and the fact that the land in question was being used for commercial purposes.
However, "Because the church’s issues challenging the jurisdiction of the trial courts are not moot or prohibited by the property code, we conclude that we have appellate jurisdiction," the opinion stated.
Attention was then turned to the other issues brought forth by the church regarding the ultimate possession of the property. The opinion states that “The church’s other two issues regarding the county court at law’s limitations on the examination of witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence both relate to the correctness of the court’s judgment awarding possession, and therefore those issues were 'essential' to the issue of possession. Thus, we conclude that these issues are primarily concerned with the issue of possession.”
Because of this determination, the court felt it had no jurisdiction over ownership matters in this case.
The court ultimately decided to “...affirm the county court at law’s judgment for possession” while dismissing all other requests.
Justice Evelyn Keyes returned a separate, dissenting opinion. In the dissenting opinion, Keyes states her belief that her fellow justices overlooked “...Property Code section 24.007 and of Rule 510.03, and it does entertain issues other than the issue of immediate possession on appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial court on them in this impermissible appeal before dismissing other portions of the eviction suit as moot. “
Keyes believes that the court should “... dismiss Praise Deliverance Church’s entire appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction.”