Reversed and Remanded and Opin ion Filed February 14, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00131-CV SPCP AUGUST OWNER, LLC D/ B/A ELEVEN600 APARTMENTS, Appellant V. WILLIAM GOLLNIK, MACIE WHIT AKER AND ALL OCCUPANTS., Appellees On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-06269-A MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness Appellant SPCP Augusta Own er, LLC (Landlord) appeals the county court’s dismissal of its forcible detainer acti on against Appellees William Gollnik, Macie Whitaker, and “All Occupants” (together, Tenants). In two issues, Landlord asserts the county court (1) erred in dismissing th e suit for want of jurisdiction, and (2) abused its discretion by dismissing the su it without prior notice. We reverse and remand.–2– BACKGROUND Landlord operates an apartment comple x, Eleven600 Apartments, located on Audelia Road in northeast Dallas. On Ja nuary 12, 2022, Tenant s entered a one-year written lease with Landlord to rent a unit at the complex. After Tenants failed to pay rent on several occasions, La ndlord gave Tenants notice to vacate on July 6, 2022, in accordance with the Texas Property C ode. After Tenants failed to surrender possession of the premises, Landlord filed a forcible detainer (eviction) suit against Tenants in the justice court on Septem ber 7, 2022. Landlord sought possession of the premises, unpaid rent, a ttorney’s fees, and costs of court. Tenants were duly served and appeared for a bench trial be fore the justice court on October 10, 2022. After considering the law and the evidence , the justice court ruled in favor of Landlord. The court ordered that Landl ord recover possession of the premises, $3,450.00 in rent owed, interest, and costs. 1 On October 14, 2022, Tenants sought to appeal by filing a “Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Cost s or an Appeal Bond,” which Landlord did not contest. Tenants then de posited the equivalent of one month’s rent as required by the justice court. The justice court ap proved the appeal and forwarded the case file to the county court clerk. The case was assigned to the Dallas County Court at Law No. 1. On November 16, 2022, Landl ord filed its First Amended Petition for Forcible Detainer in the county court. Landlord again sought possession of the

1 The justice court did not award attorney’s fees.–3– premises, damages (including u npaid rent), attorney’s fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. Then, on December 29, 2022, and without prior notice, the county court issued an order dismissing the case fo r want of jurisdiction. Landlord timely appealed to this Court. STANDARD OF REVIEW Whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo. Texas Nat. Res. Conservation Comm'n v. IT–Davy , 74 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. 2002). Similarly, we review de novo a county court’s dismissal of an appeal to that court. Laird v. Benton , 470 S.W.3d 572, 574 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.). ANALYSIS In two issues, Landlord asserts the c ounty court: (1) erred in dismissing its suit for want of jurisdiction, and (2) ab used its discretion in dismissing the case without prior notice. 2
I. County Court Had Jurisdiction Ov er the Appeal of the Forcible Detainer Suit In its first issue, Landlord contends the county court erred in dismissing its case for want of jurisdiction. We agree. The justice court of the precinct where the property is located has jurisdiction over eviction suits, including a forcible detainer action. T EX
. P ROP
. C ODE §

2 Pro se Appellees did not file any brief in this Court.–4– 24.004(a); Rice v. Pinney , 51 S.W.3d 705, 708 (Tex. A pp.—Dallas 2001, no pet.). The plaintiff seeking possession of the property may also seek rents due, attorney’s fees, and costs. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 510.3, 510.8(b); see also T EX
. P ROP
. C ODE § 24.006. A party may appeal a judgment in an ev iction case by filing an appeal bond, making a cash deposit, or filing a “Statement of In ability to Afford Payment of Court Costs” within five days after the judgment is signed in the justice court. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 510.9(a), (f). The filing of a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs perfects the appeal. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 510.9(f). Jurisdiction over the appeal vests in the county court for a trial de novo. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 510.10(c); Rice , 51 S.W.3d at 708. 3 Here, Landlord filed a petition for evicti on in the appropriate justice court. Landlord pleaded for possession, unpaid rent, a ttorney’s fees, costs, and interest, as permitted by law. T EX
. P ROP
. C ODE §§ 24.002, 24.004(a), 24.006; T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 510.3. The record reflects Tenants were duly served and appeared before the justice court. The justice court found in favor of Landlord and ordered that Landlord recover possession of the premises, rents due, interest , and costs. Tenants then timely filed a “Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond,” which Landlord did not contest. Thes e actions perfected appeal. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 510.9(f). Tenants later deposited th e equivalent of one month’s rent with the court, as required. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 510.9(c)(5). The justice court forwarded the case files to the

3 “County court” includes a statutory county court. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 500.2(f).–5– county court, and Landlord fi led an amended petition for forcible detainer. In other words, all procedures were met for the case to proceed de novo in the county court.
T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 510.10. We do not perceive anything in the reco rd that would deprive the county court of jurisdiction over the appeal from the jus tice court. However, without prior notice to the parties, the county c ourt dismissed the case without prejudice. In its order of dismissal, the county court stated: Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Ci vil Procedure and Dallas Civil court rules, this case is hereby dismissed for the following reason(s): (x) Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction This dismissal is related to the App eal and Trial de Novo of Justice of the Peace Cause No. JE-22-05210-A. The Judgment from Said Justice of the Peace Court was vacated upon perfection of the Appeal to the County Court at Law. The county court did not gi ve any additional detail as to why it believed it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Presuma bly, the court believe d the vacatur of the justice court judgment meant there was not hing to appeal, depriving the county court of jurisdiction. It is true that “perfecti on of an appeal to county court from a justice court for trial de novo vaca tes and annuls the judgment of the justice court.” Brown v. Hawkins , No. 05-16-01427-CV, 2018 WL 1312467, at *5 n.4 (Tex. App.— Dallas Mar. 14, 2018, no pet. ) (mem. op.) (quoting Villalon v. Bank One , 176 S.W.3d 66, 69–70 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied)). And, “a county court cannot affirm or reverse the judgment of th e justice court nor can it remand the cause–6– to the justice court.” Id. However, the vacatur of the justice court judgment upon perfection of the appeal does not divest th e county court of jurisdiction. It simply means the county court hears the case de novo, as if there had been no previous trial.
T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 510.10(c); see also Breitling v. LNV Corp ., No. 05-15-00677-CV, 2016 WL 3625450, at *2 (Tex. A pp.—Dallas July 5, 2016, pe t. dism’d w.o.j.) (mem. op.) (party’s complaint about the actions of the justice court became moot on appeal to the county court for a trial de novo). Accordingly, the county court had jurisd iction over the appeal from the justice court. The county court e rred in concluding otherwis e and dismissing Landlord’s suit. We sustain Landlord’s first issue. II. Failure of Notice In its second issue, Landlord complains of the county court’s dismissal of its suit without prior notice. We need not addr ess this issue, given our disposition of Landlord’s first issue. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1. CONCLUSION The county court had jurisdiction over th e appeal of Landlord’s forcible detainer suit. Therefore, the county court erred in dismissing th e case for want of jurisdiction.–7– Accordingly, we reverse the county court’s judgment and remand for proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

230131F.P05 /Robbie Partida-Kipness / ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE–8– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT SPCP AUGUST OWNER, LLC D/B/A ELEVEN600 APARTMENTS, Appellant
No. 05-23-00131-CV V. WILLIAM GOLLNIK, MACIE WHITAKER AND ALL OCCUPANTS, Appellees On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-06269- A.Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness. Justices Pedersen, III and Garcia participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is REVERSED and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is ORDERED that appellant SPCP AUGUST OWNER, LLC D/B/A ELEVEN600 APARTMENTS recover its cost s of this appeal from appellees WILLIAM GOLLNIK, MACIE WHIT AKER AND ALL OCCUPANTS.
Judgment entered this 14th day of February, 2024.