HOUSTON – A woman’s allegation that a title dispute was in the works was not enough to convince the 14th Court of Appeals on May 2 that a lower court did not have jurisdiction over a forcible detainer lawsuit.
Justice Kevin Jewell wrote the opinion, and justices Tracy Christopher And Meagan Hassan concurred.
Rosemary Phelan appealed the ruling from Harris County Civil Court. She took issue with the lower court's ruling in favor of Good Buys USA Inc.'s immediate possession of real property. Although Phelan said the county court did not have subject matter jurisdiction thanks to a pending title dispute, the appeals court said she failed to provide proof of any such disagreement.
Good Buys filed a forcible detainer litigation after Phelan refused to vacate a Houston property owned by the Houston liquidator. Good Buys purchased the property in December 2016, when Phelan was an occupant. But their arrangement deteriorated after Phelan ignored Good Buys’ notice to vacate.
Phelan responded to the lawsuit with a jurisdictional plea and said there was an issue with the title of the property that had to be settled first. The lower court ruled for Good Buys, as did the appeals court.
Phelan relied on an alleged pending title issue as her justification for the jurisdictional plea. But according to the appeals court, she failed to prove a dispute existed. Her claims concerning the conditions of the property also fell short.
“Phelan does not dispute that she is currently a tenant at sufferance," the appeals court ruled. "When a defendant in a forcible detainer action is a tenant at sufferance, defensive complaints about defects in the foreclosure process generally do not require a court to resolve a title dispute before determining the right to immediate possession, and the justice court has jurisdiction.”
Even if it did have jurisdiction, Phelan did not sufficiently plead her case.
“Phelan presented no evidence that a title dispute is so intertwined with the right to possession that the justice court lacked jurisdiction to determine possession of the property,” the appeals court added.
Ultimately, the appeals court affirmed that the lower court did in fact have jurisdiction to decide if Good Buys has the authority to immediately take over the property.