NO. 07-06 -039 0-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER28, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ IT’S THE B ER RY S, L LC, A TEX AS LI MI TED LIABI LITYC OM PAN Y , D OIN G BU SIN ESS AS MARY ELL EN’S, APP ELL ANT

V. ED OM C OR NE R, LLC , A TEXAS LIM ITED LIABI LITYC OM PAN Y , AP PELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 29 4 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF VAN ZA NDT COU NT Y; NO . 06- 00428; HO NO RA BLE TER ESA DR UM , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
OPIN ION App ellantIt’s the Be rry ’s, LLC d/b /a MaryEllen’s (Berry ’s) compla in s o f a district court jud gmen t grant ing possession of its leaseho ld to its land lord, ap pellee Edom Corner, LLC

. Broug ht as an a cti on for forci ble detai ner in jus ti ce cour t, the c ase w as transfer re d to di str ic t c our

t and there tr ied as thou g h tha t c our t pos sesse d o riginal su bje ct matter jur is dict i o n . F i n d i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt l a c k e d o r i g i n a l s u bj e c t ma t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t r y anEar l A. B er ry , J r. and Ma ry El len M alo ne are brother and si ste r. 1 2 ev ic ti on s uit , w e w il l sev er , v acat e a n d d ismis s t he forc ibl e det ain er su itand aff ir m the re mainde r of the j udg ment.
Back g ro und
T he legal com plaint s of the pa rties bef ore us arise f rom a comm ercial lease bet w een E d o m C o rn e r as lesso r and Be rry ’s as lessee. T he lea sed p rope rty w as retail spac e l ocat ed i n a b uil din g thatal so house d a rest aurant k now n as Edom B aker y . At t he ti me the par

ti es ex ecut ed the lea se, the pr inc ipa l members of Edom C or ner w ere Ear l A. B er ry , J r. and his w ife, Ann Thor nton Ber ry . Mr . and M rs . Be rr y w ere al so the sol e memb e rs o f E d o m B a k e r y , L L C , w h i c h d i d b u s i n e s s a s E d o m B a k e r y . B e r r y ’ s w as ow ned by

M ar y El len M alo ne. Edom Cor ner , Edom Bake ry , and Berr y ’s w ere for merl y

ow ned in eq ual sh ares by Mr . and M rs . Be rr

y and M alo ne. Bu t t he par ti es found joi nt op erati on of the compani es 1 difficul t and div ide d their interest s. U nder

the ag re ed di v is ion , M r. and Mrs. Ber ry ac q uired ownership of

Edom Corner and Edom Bakery and Malone acquired ow nersh ip of Berry ’s. Berry ’s operat ed a retail me rchan dise store known as Mary Ellen’s in the sp ace it lea sed from Edom Cor ner . Acc ordin g to tr ial tes ti mony , probl ems de v elo ped among the par ti es after ex ecut ion of

the le ase. D is ag re ements es cal ated after Ma lon e purchas ed a near by rest aurant, know n as “ the S hed,” a c ompeti tor of Edom Bak er

y . About eig hteen months after

ex ecut ion of the l ease, an a ttor ney for E dom C or ner

noti fied Ber ry ’s by

l etterBer ry ’s so ug ht de cl arati ons th at i t w as not i n defaultof the l ease, Edom C or ner 2 breache d the l ease, and Ed om C or ner ’s cl aims w ere bar re d by w aiv er . As the i ss ue i s n ot before u s, w e ex press no o pin ion on t he propr iety of the g ro unds for d e clarator y reli ef Ber ry ’s urg ed. 3 t h a t beca use of mu ltiple alleged breache s of the lease it mu st v acat e the pr e m is e s b y a spec ified date or

face a forci ble deta ine r sui t.
W hen Be rr

y ’s di d notv acat e the l easeh old , Ed om C or ner co mmenced a fo rci b le d e t a i n e r s u i t i n a j u s t i c e c o u rt o f V a n Z a n d t C o u n t y . B y i t s o r i g i n a l p e t it ion enti tl ed “P lai nti ff ’s Or ig ina l Peti ti on for Forci ble D etai ner ,” Edom C or ner soug ht po ss ess ion of the proper ty , a w ri t of pos ses si on, a nd at tor ney ’s fees.
Before Ber ry ’s ans w ered th e s uit , Ed om C or ner fil ed a “M oti on to Transf e r” i n the jus ti ce cour

t req uest ing transfer

of the c ase to t he 294t h j udi ci al di str ic t cour t of Van Zand t Coun ty. In its m otion , Edo m Corner asse rted a su it w as alread y pen ding in district court conc er nin g a di sput e among othe r enti ti es ow ned byMal one and M r. and Mrs. Ber ry . The jus ti ce cour

t respon ded w it h an order transfe rrin g t h e c ase to di str ic t c our t “ becau se the matte r concer ns is sues w it hin i ts jur is dicti on.” Thereafter, Ber ry ’s ans w ered and filed a coun terclaim for declara tory relief and atto rney’s fees. 2
About three w eeks l ater , Ed om C or ner fil ed a suppl emental peti ti on req uest ing the dis tr ic t cour

t to iss ue “w it hout noti ce” a temporar y rest ra ini ng order

enjoi nin g Ber ry ’s from locking a passageway

in th e buildin g, lea v ing th e doo r of Mary Ell en’s op en while the air condi ti oni ng operated, and int er feri ng i n e f

f o rts to c hang e bui ldi ng l ock s. The suppl emental peti ti on req uest ed a temporar y i nju nct ion and on tr ial a pe rmane nt i nju nct ionEdom Corner’s req uestfor perm ane nt injun ctiv e relief w as no t tried or expressly 3 emb ra c e d b y t h e c o u rt ’ s j u d g me n t

. A s t h e j u d g me n t w a s s i g n e d fo l l o w i n g a t r i a l on th e meri ts and no order

for t ri al of separate i ss ues appears o f rec ord w e presume the j udg ment is f ina l for appell ate purp oses . Mo ritz v. Pr eis s, 121 S.W .3d 715, 719- 20 (Tex

. 2003)

. The par ti es do notarg ue ot her w is e. 4 becau se “w hen [ Edom C or ner ] prev ail s in it s sui t for Forci ble D etai ner there i s a per iod of ti me betw een th e C o u rt ’s j udg ment and the act ual phy si cal ev acuat ion of the p re mis es

. . . .” N o temporar

y rest ra ini ng order

or temporar

y i nju nct ion i ss ued. 3
Fol low ing a be nch tr ial , t he dist ri ct cour t sig ned a jud g ment aw ardin g Edom C or ner poss ess ion of the l eased premis es, a w ri t of po ss ess ion , c ost s a nd at tor ney ’s fees. The jud g ment al so decreed t hat B er ry ’s tak e not hin g by i ts count er cl aims

. Ber ry ’s timel y

fi l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h e T w e l ft h D i s t r i c tC o u rto f A p p e a l s at Ty ler

. It als o f il ed a moti on w it h the tri al cour t req uest ing a supersedea s b ond ex ceedi ng the a g g re g a t e of atto rn ey ’s fees aw arded Ed om C or ner under the jud g ment, post -j udg ment int erest , and the monthl y re ntal and uti li ty charg es pay abl e acc ordin g to the t er ms of the lea se. Edom Cor ner obj ect ed, arg uin g the cas e w as a forci ble detai ner sui t noti nv olv ing a par ty ’s pr inc ipa l re si dence and ex ecut ion of a w ri t o f posses si on c oul d notbe superseded

. See Tex . R . C iv . P. 755. The t ri al cour t ordered a supersedea s bond in an amount s uff ic ien t onl y

to supersede enforc ement of t he monetar y por ti on of i ts jud g ment. Berry ’s pet itione d the T y ler Court for a w rit of ma nda mu s arguing the trial court did not s et t he amountof bond neces sar y to supersede the w ri t of po ss ess ion , c ontrar y to the re q uirements of

Rule of Appell ate Pro cedure 24.1. Tex . R . Ap p. P . 24. 1( a) (3 ); In re It' s T he Ber ry 's, LLC, No. 12- 06- 00298- CV , 200 6 W L 30203 53, 2 006 Tex. App. Lex is 9146, *9- 115

(Tex .App. –Ty ler

Oc t. 25, 2006, ori g . proc eedi ng ) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. Edom Corner again too k the po sition t h e wr it co uld no t be sup ersed ed u nde r Rule of Civ il Procedu re 755 b e ca u se i t w as not a par ty ’s pr inc ipa l re si dence

. Ber ry ’s co untered th at Rul e 755 w as not a ppl ic abl e to the cas e because the appeal w as not f ro m a judg ment of the c ounty

co urt. 2006 W L 30203 53, a t * 3, 20 06 Tex . Ap p . L e xis 9 146, at * 10. Edom Cor ner respon ded t hat G ov er nment C ode s ect ion 24.471 es tabl is hed a “s peci al re lat ion shi p” betw een t he c ounty courtand dis tr ic t cour

t of Van Zand t C ounty , aut hor iz ing adj udi cat ion of i ts forci ble detai ner sui t in dis tr ic t cour t. Therefore, Rul e 755 ap p lie d, dis all ow ing su spens ion of the w ri t of pos ses si on. 2 006 W L 30203 53, a t * 4, 2006 Tex . Ap p. Lexis 9146 , at *10 -11. T he T y ler Cou rt d isagreed, f inding Rule 755 inapp licable be cause Ber ry ’s w as appeal ing not from a j udg ment of the county co urt after

a t ri al de nov o on appeal from t he j ust ic e c our t, but a j udg ment of the dis tr ic t c our t, ex er ci si ng i ts or ig ina l jurisdiction. 2006 W L 3 0 2 0 3 5 3 , a t*4 , 200 6 T ex. App. Le x is 9146 , at *12 . Th e cou rt conc lud ed th e tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on by not set ti ng a bond for s uspen si on of the enti re j udg ment, and condi ti onal ly g ra nted the w ri t of mandamus

. 2006 W L 30203 53, a t *4, 2006 Tex . Ap p. Le x is 9146, at *12- 13. After the t ri al cour t c omplie d with the re q uirements of the c ondi ti onal g ra nt, the Ty ler Cou rt dis mis sed the o ri g ina l proceed ing as moot. In re It'

s The Ber

ry 's, LLC, No. 12-06- 00298- CV , 2006 W L 3313659, 2006 Tex . Ap p. Lex is 9920 (Tex .App. –Ty ler N ov ember

15, 2 006, or ig . proceed ing ) (n ot de si g nated for pub lication). By docke t equaliz ation order of the Su prem e Court, the a ppe al of the case
w as thereafter tr a n sf e rred to t his co urt. See Tex . G ov ’tC ode An n. § 73.001 (V er non 200 5).6 Iss ues Ber ry ’s rais es tw enty -tw o i ss ues on appe al. W e find is sues one and el ev en dispo sitiv e of

the ap pea l.
Di sc uss ion
In i ts first is sue Ber ry ’s arg ues the d is tr ic t c our t l ack ed s ubj ect

matte r jur is dicti on to tr y Edom C or ner ’s forc ibl e det ain er ac ti on. W h e t h e r a t ri a l c o u rtp o s s e s s e d su bje c tm a t t e r ju ri s d ic t io n is a qu e s t io n o f la w we re v iew de n ov o. Ma yhew v

. T own of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W .2d 922, 928 ( Tex . 199 8)

. The ex is tenc e of subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on may be rais ed for the first tim e o n a ppeal by the p a rt i e s o r t h e c o u rt o n i t s o w n moti on. University of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Lou tzenh iser, 140 S .W .3 d 3 5 1 , 358 ( Tex . 200 4) , super seded by st atute on o ther

gr ounds, T ex. Gov ’t Cod e Ann. § 31 1.034 (V er non Su pp. 2 008)

. An acti on for

for ci ble detainer

is the judi ci al procedu re for determi nin g the ri g ht t o immedi ate p oss ess i o n o f real proper ty

. Kennedy

v. H igh lan d H

il ls Apar tm ents, 905 S. W .2d 325, 326 ( Tex .App. –Da ll as 1995, no w ri t)

. It ex is ts to prov ide a sp e e d y, sim ple and ine x pensi v e means for s ettl ing the ri g ht t o pos ses si on of premis es. Id. A person w ho re fuses to sur re nder poss ess ion of real proper ty on d emand commi ts a forc ibl e det ain er i f the person:7 (1 ) is a t enant or

a s ubtenan t w il fully

and w it hou t force hol din g ov er after the t er minat ion of the t enant' s r ig ht of pos ses si on; (2 ) is a t e nant at w il l or by su ff erance, i ncl udi ng an o cc upant at t he ti me of forecl osure of a l ien su per ior to the t enant' s l ease; or (3 ) i s a t e n a n to f

a p e rs o n wh o a c qu ir e d p o s s e s s io n b y fo rc ib le e n t ry. Tex . Prop. Code Ann § 24.002(a )( 1) -( 3) (Ver non 2000). A prev ail ing l andl ord i n a s uitfor forci ble deta ine r “i s e nti tl ed to a j udg ment for poss ess ion of the p re mis es and a w ri t of posse ssion.” Te x . Prop. Code An n. § 24 .00 61(a ) ( Verno n 20 00).
A forc ibl e d e t a i n e r

a cti on depe nds on th e ex is tenc e of a l andl ord- tenantrela ti onshi p. Haith v . D ra ke, 596 S.W .2d 194 , 196 (Tex.Civ .Ap p.– Housto n [1stDist.] 1 980 , w rit ref ’d
n.r .e.)

. O n l y

p ro o f o f a s u p e r i o r

r i g h tt o i mm e d i a t e p o s s e s s i o n m u s tb e p ro v e d fo r the pla int if f to prev ail i n a for ci ble deta ine r act ion

. Goggi ns v. Leo, 849 S. W .2d 3 73, 3 77 (Tex .App. –Ho ust o n [ 1 4th D is t.] 1993, no w ri t)

. Acc ordin g ly , t he s ole matte r in is sue for re sol uti on i n a for ci ble deta ine r act ion i s w hic h par ty has the super ior

r ig ht t o i mmediat e acc ess to the p ro per

ty

. Fandey v. Lee, 880 S.W .2d 164 , 168 (Te x .Ap p.– El Paso 199 4, w rit deni ed) ; Goggi

ns, 849 S. W .2d a t 377

. District courts in Texas are courts of general j urisdiction , presu ma bly having subje ct matter jur is dicti on ov er

a caus e unl ess a c ontrar y sh ow ing i s made

. Subar u of A m er

ic a, In c . v . D av id Mc D av

id N i s s an , Inc. , 8 4 S.W .2d 2 12, 2 20 ( Tex . 200 2) , citi ng D ubai P e t r o le u mC o . v

. K a zi , 12 S.W .3d 7 1, 75 ( Tex . 2 0 0 0 ). Under our co nst it uti on and by sta tute, the dis tr ic t c our t’ s j ur is dicti on “co n sis ts of ex cl usi v e, ap pel lat e, an d or ig ina l“ ‘B asi cal ly , di str ic t c our ts are tr ibu nal s o f gen eral jur is dictio n wit h ex cl usi v e, 4 app ellate , and o rig inal jurisdiction in all ca uses unle ss t he dom ain has b een constitu tiona lly or st atuto ri ly

sp eci fied el sew here.’ ” 1 R oy W . M cD onal d & El a in e A. Grafton C ar ls on, T exas Civ il Practice: Courts § 3:3 0 n.1 (2d ed. 200 4) ( quoti ng T ex as Cour

ts, A S tudy

By the Tex as Res ear ch Leag ue: R epor t O ne ( The Tex as Judi ci ar y : A Str uct ural- Functi onal Overv iew ) pp. 29 , 30 (19 90)). T he Go v ernm entCode f urthe r pro v ides th at a district cou rt “may hear and deter mine any caus e that is cog niz abl e by cour ts of law or eq uity and may g ra nt an y

reli ef that c oul d be g ra nted by either court s of law

or equi ty .” Tex . Gov ’tC ode Ann. § 24. 008 ( Ver non 200 4)

. 8 jur is dicti on of al l act ion s, proceed ing s, and remedie s, ex cept i n cases w here ex cl usi v e, appel l a t e , o r o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n ma y b e c o n fe r r e d b y [ t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n ] o r o t h e r l awon some o ther

co urt, tr ibu nal , or

admi nis trati v e body .” Tex . C onst

. art. V, § 8; Tex . G ov ’tC ode Ann . § 24. 007 (Vernon 200 4). The legi slature has com mitt ed jurisdict io n o f a forcible 4 det aine r suit, h owev er, exclusiv ely to a justice court in the precinct w here the pro perty in q uest ion i s l ocat ed. Tex . Prop. C ode An n. § 24.004 ( Ver non 2000); T ex . Gov ’tC ode An n. § 27 .03 1(a)(2) (Vernon 200 4) (justice court ha s orig inal jurisdi c t io n of cases of

forcible ent ry and deta iner); McGl

othl in v. Kl ieb er t, 672 S. W .2d 2 31, 2 32 ( Tex . 198 4) ( re ferr ing to ex cl usi v e jur is dicti on of j ust ic e c our

t i n forc ibl e ent ry

and detai ner

ca se) ; Hagina s v. Malbis Me m or ial F oundati on, 163 Tex

. 274, 354 S.W .2d 368, 371 (Tex

. 1962) ( forci ble entr y and detai ner ac ti on mus t be ins ti tuted i n j ust ic e c our t) ; Rice v. Pi

nney, 51 S.W .3d 70 5 , 712 (Tex .App. –Da ll as 2001, no pet.) ( jur is dicti on “ ex press ly ” g iv en to j ust ic e c our t) ; Mitchell v. Ar m str ong C apital

C or p., 911 S.W .2d 169 , 171 (Tex.App .–Hou ston [1st D is t

. ] 1 995 , w rit den ied) (jurisdiction of

forcible de taine r suit is in justice court and o n ap pea l, coun ty court); Mc Cl oud v . Kn app, 507 S. W .2d 6 44, 6 47- 648 ( Tex .C iv .App. –Da ll as 1974, no w ri t)

. W here a cl aimed r ig ht of i mmediat e pos ses si on nec ess ar il y req uires re sol uti on of a ti tl e di sput e, t he jus ti ce cour t l ack s s ubj ectmatte r jur is dicti on. Rice, 51 S. W .3d a t 709 ;F urther , t ri al of this forc ibl e det ain er su iti n di str ic t c our

t precl udes appeal by

tr ial 5 de nov o, Tex

. R. Ci v . P. 751, and pla ces appeal in the cour ts of ap peal s, w hen the 9 T ex. R

. Civ

. P. 746

. B ecau se a forcible det aine r act ion is n ot exclusiv e of othe r rem edie s, ano the r possesso ry

action , such as a suit for trespa ss to try title, m ay be b rought in district cour t. Scott v

. Hewitt , 127 Tex . 3 1 , 9 0 S .W .2d 816, 81 9 ( Tex . 193 6) ( ti tl e may not be adj udi cat ed i n forc ibl e ent ry and detai ner

proceed ing but re medy is c umulat iv e of any

othe r re medy ); Rice, 51 S.W .3d at 709; T ex . Prop. C ode An n. § 24.008 (s uitfor for ci ble deta ine r doe s not ba r a suit for “tresp ass, dam ages, w aste , rent, o r m esne p rof its.”). And t he d istrict court m ay adju dicate a suit to trytitle concu rrently w ith a forcible de taine r action in justice cour t. Hai th, 596 S. W .2d a t 196 ; Rice, 51 S. W .3d a t 709

. Here the parties an d trial co urt looke d to Go v ernm entCode § 2 4.4 71(b ) as the origin of jur is dicti on of the dis tr ic t c our t t o tr y the forci ble deta ine r su it

. In pe rt ine nt pa rtthe sta tute prov ide s: T he 2 94t h District Court has concu rrent jurisdiction w ith the coun ty court in Van Z andt Cou nty

ov er al l matte rs of ci v il and cr imi nal j ur is dicti on, o ri g ina l and app ell ate, in cas es ov er w hic h the cou nty

co urt has j ur is dicti on unde r the cons ti tuti on and la w s o f this st ate. M atters a nd proceed ing s i n the conc ur re nt j ur is dicti on of the 294th Di str ic t C our t and the county

co urt may be fil ed i n ei ther

co urt and al l cas es of conc ur re nt j ur is dicti on may be transf erred be tw een the 294 th District Court and the cou nty court. How ever, a c ase maynot be transfer re d from one cour t to another w it hout the c onsen t of the j udg e of the cour t t o w h ich i t i s t ra nsferred, a nd a cas e may not be transf erred un less it is w ithin th e jurisdiction o f the cou rt to w hich it is transfer re d.
T ex. Go v ’t Co de Ann

. § 24. 471 (b) (Vernon 2 004 ). W e do not f ind th is statut e am biguous. It does not a uthor iz e, nor coul d it author iz e, cons is tent w it h Proper ty C ode § 24.004, tr ial of a forci ble deta ine r sui t i n the 294t h di str ic t c our t. 5leg is lat ure i ntended final appel lat e resol uti on by the county

co urt. See T e x. Pr o p. C ode Ann. § 24. 007 ( Ver non 200 0) ( final j udg ment of co unty courtin for ci ble entry

and detai ner action n o tapp eala ble on issue of posse ssion un less prope rty in q uest ion is excl usively re si denti al)

. 10 Edom C or ner

arg ues the Ty ler

C our t’ s c ondi ti onal g ra nt of manda mus re sol v ed any q uest ion of the d is tr ict cour t’ s subj ectm atter

jur is dicti on and w e are, therefore, precl uded by the “l aw

of the c ase” doc tr ine from c onsi der ing the qu e st io n of subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on. W e di sag re e. T he “law of

the case ” doctrine is def ined as thatprincip le und er w hich q uest ions o f

l a w deci ded on appeal to a c our t of l astresor

t w il l g ov er n the case th roughou t its subseque nt sta ges. By narrow ing the issues in suc ces si v e s tag es of the l it ig ati on, t he l aw of th e c a se doct ri ne i s i ntended t o a c h ie ve u n ifo rm it y o f d e c is io n a s we ll a s j u d ic ia l e c o n o m y a n d e f f ic ie n c y. The doct ri ne i s b ased on publ icpol icy a n d i s a imed at pu tti ng an e nd to li ti g ati on. Hud son v. W akef ield, 711 S.W .2d 628, 630 (Tex . 1986) ( ci tati ons omit ted)

. The doct ri ne is not a limi tati on on the p ow er of the c our

t. Dev il la v. Schr

iv er , 245 F.3d 19 2, 19 7 (2d Cir. 2001)

. Rat her , as Jus ti ce Hol mes lon g ag o noted, it “merely ex press es the p ra cti ce of the courts gene rally

to ref use to reope n w hathas be en d ecide d.” Me ss enger v. Ander son, 225 U. S. 4 36, 4 44, 3 2 S. Ct . 739 , 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1 912)

. Appl ic ati on of the doct ri ne l ies w it h the dis creti on of

the cour t. Br is coe v. Goodm ar

k C or p., 102 S.W .3d 714 , 716 (Tex. 2003 ).
The Fo u rt e e nth C our

t of Appea ls reje cte d a c ontent ion l ik e tha t made by Edom Cor ner here i n Gantt

v. Gantt, 208 S. W .3d 2 7 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4th D is t.] 2006, pet. deni ed)

. There, a pa rty co ntended the law

of the cas e doct ri ne precl uded t he F our teent h Cou rtfrom di smiss in g an appeal for l ack of subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on, b ased on a lat e noti ce of appeal

. Id. a t 30 n.4 Accordin g to th e pa rty ’s arg um ent , the Corpus Christi Court11

of Appe als, by i ssuing an op inion a nd jud gmen t in a prior appe al i n the case , mu st neces sar il y

hav e c oncl uded i t had j ur is dicti on, e sta bli shi ng the law of the cas e. Id. The Fourte e n th Co u rtfo u n d th e Co rp u s Ch ris ti Co u rtha d no t e xpre ss ly co n sid e re d an d de ci ded the late-no tice-of-app eal questio n, an d foun d tha t court’s sub silen tio ex er cise of jur is dicti on w as not l aw of the c ase. Id.
Our circumsta nce is similar. W hile it might be said that i mp licit in the T y ler Court’s opi nio n i s recog nit ion th a t th e tri al cour t ex er ci sed subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on by adj udi cat ing the cas e, t his w as cl ear ly not the n ar ro w

q uest ion present ed or

dec ide d i n the mandamus proceed ing

. Indeed, the Ty ler C our t’ s o pin ion st ates , “E dom [C or ner] s tates that itag re ed to the transfer [f ro m jus ti ce cour

t] and does not contend that the t ra nsfer w as imp rope r.” In r

e I t ’s t h e B e r r y ’s , 2006 W L 3020353, at*3, 2006 Tex . Ap p. Le x is 9146, at *9. W e de cline to ut iliz e the law of the case d octrine to avoid rev iew of the district cou rt’s ex er ci se of subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on i n the forc ibl e det ain er ac ti on. Edom C or ner

al so arg ues that Ber ry ’s i s j udi cially es topped to no w

ch all eng e the subje ct ma tter jurisdiction of the trial court becau se in its pet ition fo r w rit of man dam us it all eg ed th e l aw sui t w as one ov er w hic h a d is tr ic t c our

t h a s o ri g ina l jur is dicti on. Edom Cor ner as ser ts that Ber ry ’s thus took i ncons is tent posi ti ons in the mand amus a cti on and the instan t app eal, a nd is esto ppe d to do so. W e disagree for tw o reaso ns. First, “[s]ubject ma t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n c a n n o tbe co n fe r r e d by co n s e n t , w a i v e r , or

es t o p p e l atan y

st a g e of a proce edin g.” Tour

neau Hou sto n, Inc. v. Har ri s C ounty Appr ais al Di st. , 24 S. W .3d 9 07, 9 10 (Te x .Ap p.– Housto n [1st Dist.] 200 0, no pet. ) ( ci ti ng F ed. U nder writer s E xch. v . Pu gh, 141 Tex . 539 , 174 S.W .2d 5 98, 6 00 ( Tex . 194 3) ). Se cond, and ass uming Ber ry ’s mandamus12

and app ell ate p osi ti ons w ere c ontradi cto ry , t he mandamus proceeding i s p art of the presentca se and nota p rio r p ro ce edi ng . See Pleasa nt Glad e Assembly of God v. Schu ber t, No. 05-0 916 , 51 Tex. S.Ct. J. 1086 , 200 8 W L 25 720 09, at *6, 20 08 T ex. Lex is 620, at * 17 ( Tex . June 27, 2008). The doct ri ne of judi ci al est oppel has no a ppl ic ati on to cont ra dictor

y pos it ion s t aken in the s ame proceed ing

. Id. ( c itin g Galley v. Ap ollo Ass oci ated Ser vs ., Ltd., 177 S. W .3d 5 23, 5 2 9 ( T e x.A pp.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 5, no pet.) ).
The re li ef Edom Cor ner soug ht in the tri al cour t w as ex cl usi v e to Ch apter 24 o f the Proper ty C ode. Tex

. Pr o p . Code Ann. Cha pter 24 F or ci ble Ent ry

and Det ain er

( Ver non 2000 &Supp. 2007)

. The dis tr ic t c our t w as w it hout subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on to tr y Edom Cor ner ’s forc ibl e det ain er su it

. W e s ust ain Ber ry ’s first is sue. In i ts ele v enth is sue, Ber ry ’s cha lleng es the a w ard of atto rn ey ’s fees for Edom Corner an d the d e n ia l o f i ts request for atto rney’s fees. Specif ically , Berry ’s asserts it shoul d hav e prev ail ed i n the tri al cour t and recov ered attor ney ’s f ees w hil e Edom Cor ner shoul d nothav e prev ail ed and w as not e nti tl ed to recover a tt o rn ey ’s fees. Bec ause the dis tr ic t c our

t l ack ed s ubj ectmatte r jur is dicti on to adj udi cat e the forc ibl e det ai n e r act ion , t hat caus e, i ncl udi ng the aw ard of statut or y and cont ra ctu al atto rn ey ’s f ees and cost s t o Edom Cor ner , mus t be se t asi de and dis mis sed. I n the sa me w ay , t he tr ial co urt had no jur is dicti on to aw ard att or ney’s f e e s to B er ry ’s for d efense of a forc ibl e det ain er ac ti on. Berry ’s does no t cont end the ab sence o f a n aw ard of

atto rney’s fees u nde r the Uniform Dec larator

y Ju dg ments Act , Tex . C iv . Prac. & R em. C ode § 37.009 (V e rnon 1997) , w as13

er ro r. W e sus tai n Ber ry ’s ele v enth is sue as to the re cov er y of attor ney ’s f e e s b y Ed om Corner. W e overrule Berry ’s elev ent h issue as to its claim for atto rney’s fees. Con cl usi on W hen a tr ial courtl ack s s ubj ectmatte r jur is dicti on to render a j udg ment, the p ro per procedu re on a ppeal i s for the appel lat e c our

t t o s et t he j udg ment as ide and dis mis s t he caus e. See D all

as Cou nty

Appr ais a l Dis t. v. Fund

s R ecov er y, 887 S. W .2d 4 65, 4 71 (Te x .Ap p.– Dallas 199 4) ( citi ng Fulton v

. F inch, 162 Tex . 351 , 346 S.W .2d 8 23, 8 27 (196 1)). Fi ndin g the trial court lacked subject ma tter jurisdiction , w e sever the forcible det aine r case, v acat e the judgmen t in the forcible de taine r case, an d dism iss the forcible detai ner ca se. O ther

w is e, w e aff ir m the dis tr ic t c our t’ s j udg ment.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice