T he Cor pus Chr i st i H ousi ng Aut hor i t y i s a f eder al l y subsi di z ed a gency , and i t i s r egul at ed b y t i t l e 42 , 1 C h a p te r 8 o f t h e U n i te d S ta te s C o d e a n d ti tl e 2 4 o f t h e C o d e o f F e d e ra l R e g u l a ti o n s . See 42 U

. S. C

. §§ 1401- 1440; 24 C

. F. R

. §§ 0- 4199. 

### NUM BER 13-07- 0027 7-CV



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
C OR PU S C H R IS T I HOU SING A UT HOR ITY , A pp ellan t,
v. M A RIA L A RA , A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e C o u n ty C o u rta t L aw N o . 5 of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

Opin ion b y

C hie f J us tice Vald ez Appel lan t, Cor pus Chr is ti H ousi ng Aut hor ity , app eal s from an order di smi ss ing i ts forci ble detai ner act ion ag ain st appel lee , Ma ri a Lara, a hous ing auth or ity tena nt. See T EX .

1T he t ri al co urt g ra n te d L a ra ’ s di s m i s s al m oti on on t he pl ea di ng s . I t , t he refore , di d n ot he ar l i ve 2 te s ti m o n y , a n d c o n s e q u e n tly, t h is c a s e is s u b m i tte d w i th o u t a re p o rte r’s re c o rd

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 4 .1 ( p r o v id in g th a t t h e a p p e lla te r e c o r d c o n s is ts o fth e c le r k ’s r e c o r d , a n d ifn e c e s s a r y to th e a p p e a l, th e r e p o r te r ’s re c o rd ). W e ta k e n o te o f th e a l l e g a ti o n s o f c rim i n a l a c ti v i ty fro m p o l i c e re p o rts th a t t h e h o u s i n g a u th o rit y subj oi ned t o t he t er m i nat i on n ot i ce. 2 P ROP
. C OD E A NN . § 24 .00 2 (Vern o n 200 0). T he h ousin g aut hority terminat ed L ara’s
re si denti al lea se becau se she all eg edl y v iol ated lea s e p ro v i s i o n s , prov ide d Lara w it h formal
no ti c e of t he l ea s e te r mi na ti on , and su bs eq ue nt l y o bt ai ne d an e v i c ti on j ud g me ntfrom a jus ti ce cour

t. See i d. § 24.004 (V er non 2000)

. Lara appeal ed to a county cour t at law and
mov ed to di smi ss the housi ng auth or ity ’s ac ti on bec ause it s n oti ce was d e f e cti v e under cont rolling fede ral rules. The trial court g rante d La ra’s dismissal mo tion. By tw o issues, the h ousi ng auth or ity

contends that the tr ial co urt er re d by di smi ss ing i ts sui t bec ause: ( 1) its notice w as ad equate ; and (2) even if t he not ice w as inad equate , Lara h ad a ctua l notice of the l ease ter minat ion

. W e rev erse and remand. I. B A CKGRO UND 2 Lara l eased an a par

tment from the housi ng auth or ity on Nov ember

27, 1995, and she has li v ed in a housi ng author ity apar tment ev er si nce. The housi ng au th o rity ter minat ed Lara's l ease on October 10, 2 006 bec ause Lara, he r minor so n, an d her dau ghter allegedly eng a ge d i n crim inal activity , w hich w as a vi olatio n of the lea se prov is ion s a nd feder al law

. A . A llege d Criminal Activ ity The ev ents under ly ing the lea se ter minat ion oc cur re d on the e v eni ng s o f September 1 9 an d Oc to b e r 2, 20 0 6 . On Se p te m b e r 1 9 , Of f ice r J. Ca n tu re ce ived a ca ll re gar d in g a speed ing motorcy cle on the s treet i n frontof Lara’s apar tment. Ac cordin g to Off ic er Can tu’ s repor

t, he w it ness ed a m o torcy cl e trav eli ng at a hi g h rate o f speed o n a s treet3

w here c hil dr en w er e pl ay ing

. Upo n s toppi ng the motor cy cl e, O ff ic er Can tu q uest ion ed th e dr iv er , w ho i denti fied hi msel f as P. L., Lara's min or so n. P.L. w as not l ic ensed to operate
a mo torcycl e, an d the mot orcy cle w as no t registered. O f f ic e r Ca ntu then mad e con tact
w ith La ra and her dau ghter, w ho “w ere in aggressive postures and w ere v ulgar and vocal” to him according to his repo rt. Of f icer Cantu ’s repo rt not ed that P.L. w as “cited,” butit did not s peci fy w h a t, i f anyi nfract ion s w er e i ncl uded i n the ci tati on. Off ic er C antu did not
ar re st any one dur ing hi s i nv est ig ati on. On Octobe r 2, Off icer Casares w as dispa tche d to investigate a repo rted distu rban ce at Lara’s nei g hbor ’s apar tment. U pon ar ri v ing , O ff ic er C asares met w it h R osar io Nav ar ro , Lara ’s neighbor. Navarro told Of f icer Casa res thatLara th reate ned her beca use sh e w ould notp ro vid e false te stimo ny abo ut th e incide nt th at occu rred on Se pte mb er 19. Navarro
re count ed to Officer

C asares th at on e of Lara’s mal e rela ti v es approache d her i n an ag g re ss iv e manner

and pushe d her

aw ay w it h hi s sto mach. Nav ar ro als o adv is ed Officer Casares that she had hea rd tha t Lara w as ma king dea th threats ag ainst her. Nav arro ex pr ess ed to Of

ficer Casares that she feared for her safetybecause of pr ev iou s i nci dents and threat s. B. Leas e Termina tion and Ev iction Proce edings The hous ing auth or ity

ter minat ed Lara’s l ease w hen i t recei v ed the r e p o rts from Of f icers Cantu a nd Casa res. On Octob er 10, 200 6, the hou sing autho rity provi ded Lara
w it h a “ 72- [H ]our

N oti ce to Termina te the Lease and Noti ce to Vacate ,” w hic h c lai med that Lara had v iol ated lea se prov is ion s b y eng ag ing i n prohi bit ed c onduc t. The not ic e s tated that Lar a ’s le ase w oul d be ter minat ed on Oct ober 13, 2006. Itco ntai ned c opi es of the repo rts of

Of f icers Cantu a nd Casa res. T h e notice alleged tha t the followi ng lease4

prov is ion s w er e v iol ated: T o act an d cau se ot h e r p erson (s) w ho a re on prem ises w ith Reside nt’s conse nt to act in a ma nne r w hich w ill notdisturb re s id e n t s ’ or neighbo rs’ peace fu l e n joy ment of thei r acc ommodati ons and w il l be c onduc iv e to ma in t aining prem ises and the de v elop me nt in a de cent , safe an d san itary condi ti on. To re frai n from i ll eg al or othe r activ ity

thati mpairs t he phy si cal or so ci al env ironment o f the dev elo pment. To acti n a n o rd e r l y

m a n n e r i n d e a l i n g s w i t h [ m] a n a g e me n ta n d / o r o t her re si dents and not t o harass or retal iat e ag ain st manag ement an d/or othe r re si dents i n any

w ay so l ong as manag ement a n d /o r o ther resi dents re asona bly

and peace fully

ex er ci se any

r ig ht g ra nted under

the lea se. To re frai n from c ommitt ing any ac t of phy si cal v iol ence to pe rs ons or prop erty on o r of

f prem ises. T he n otice warned La ra thatshe w as no t ent itled to a gr ie v ance hea ring, but it sta ted t hat: [T ]hi s e vic t io n proce dure provi des th e op portu nity for a hea ring in [a] cou rt that cont ain s t he bas ic elements of due proces s a s d efined by H UD [t he United S tate s De partm entof Housing and Urban Dev elop me nt] regulatio ns. If y ou do not v aca te on or before the expi r a ti on of 72 Hours from th e dat e o f th is n ot ice, Oct ob er 1 3, 20 06, l egal act io n reg ard in g ev ict io n w ill be instituted for posse ssi on th ere of

. (e mphasi s i n or ig ina l)

. Lara refused to v acat e the premis es, and the h ousi ng auth or ity fil ed sui t for forci ble deta ine r in a j ust ic e c our t. See T EX . P ROP
. C OD E A NN . §§ 24. 002, 24.004. T he just ice court en tered a judgme nt of ev iction in favor of th e ho using auth ority . Lara appeal ed to a c ounty

co urt atl aw . The hous ing auth or ity ’s peti ti on in county cour t re peated the fact s c ontai ned i n the police rep orts. Th e ho using aut hority alleged that Lara v iolate d lease provi sions be cause she: (1 ) did not abi de by the admis si on and cont inu ed occ upanc y pol icy ; ( 2) di stu rb ed ot her5

resi d e n ts ’ peace ful enj oy ment of the pr emis es; and (3 ) eng ag ed i n c ri minal ac ti v ity that imp a ire d the phy si cal or so ci al env ironment o f the dev elo pment. The hous ing auth or ity prayed for posse ssion of Lara ’s apa rtme nt, actua l and exemp lary dam ages, court cost s, and reason abl e att or ney ’s fees. Lara ans w er ed th e hous ing auth or ity ’s peti ti on w it h a g eneral deni al. Sh e al so filed spec ial ex cept ion s, a pl ea i n abat ement, and a moti on to dis mis s. In her di smi ss al moti on, Lara posite d tha t fede ral reg ulatio ns ma nda te d t h a t the hou sing autho rity ’s lease term inatio n no tice “[s]pe cif y the jud icial ev iction proce dure to be u sed, ” see 24 C .F .R . § 966.4( l) (3 )( v )( B) ( 2008) , and “ [s] tate w hether the ev ic ti on i s for

a c ri m in a l a ct iv ity

as describe d in § 96 6.5 1(a)(2)(i)( A) or fo r a drug- relate d crimina l activ ity . . . ,” see 24 C.F.R. § 96 6.4 (l)( 3)(v )(C) (W est 20 08). Lara argued thatthe no tice she receiv ed d id notconta in eit her of the federall y

mandate d s tatement s. Lara as serte d thatthe noti ce did not eff ect iv ely

ter minat e her

r ig ht of pos ses si on bec ause of its def ect s a nd th at t he ev ic ti on proceed ing thatthe housi ng a u th or ity i nst it uted in the j ust ic e c our t v iol ated sta te l aw becau se itw as ins ti tuted before an effectiv e l ease ter minat ion

. See T EX . P ROP
. C OD E A NN . § 24. 005( a) (1 ) (V er non 2000) ( prov idi ng that the l andl ord mustg iv e a t enant w ho defaul ts at lea st three days' w ritten no tice to vacate th e prem ises before the landlo rd f iles a forcible det aine r suit). The hous ing auth or ity

respon ded t o Lara’s dism is sal moti on by arg uin g thatthe not ice suf

f iciently informe d La ra of the all e ge d c rim inal activity and the jud icial process. The hous ing auth or ity

furth er arg ued t hat e v en i f the not ic e w er e defecti v e, i t di d not depr iv e the tr ial co urt of su bje ct- matter j u ris dic ti on bec ause the s tatut e’s pur pose w as infor mati onal rather than jur is dic ti onal

. See D u b a i P e t r o le u mC o . v

. K a zi , 12 S.W .3d 7 1,6

76- 77 ( Tex . 200 0) ; Helena Chem . C o. v . Wil ki ns , 47 S.W .3d 3 51, 3 58 ( Tex . 200 1)

. On Febr uar

y 22, 2007, the county cour t g ra nted Lara’s dis mis sal moti on and is sued findi ng s o f fact and conc lus ion s of l aw . In i ts leg al conc lus ion s, the t ri al cour t found t hat the fede ral reg ulatio ns at issue are subje ct to revi ew for strict comp liance a nd th at failure to sati sfythe noti ce req uirements depri v es the tri al cour t of su bje ct- matter

j ur is dic ti on. The housi ng auth or ity

fil ed a moti on for new tr ial , w hic h the tr ial co urt d e n ied. Thi s a ppeal
ensue d. II. D I S CUS S I ON By tw o i ss ues, the housi ng author ity compl ain s t hat t he tr ial co urt er re d i n di smi ss ing it s for ci ble deta ine r act ion

. Fi rs t, the housi ng auth or ity cl aims thati ts noti ce compl ied w it h
sec ti on 966.4( l) (3 )( v )( B) of ti tl e 24 of the C ode of F ederal Reg ula ti ons. See 24 C .F .R . § 966.4( l) (3 )( v )( B)

. Seco nd, t he hous ing authori ty contends that ev en i f the not ic e fail ed to compl y w it h the appl ic abl e federal re g ula ti ons, the tr ial cour t re tai ned su bje ct- matter jur is dic ti on bec ause Lara had ac tual kn ow led g e of the ev icti on proceed ing ; t herefore, she
w as not h ar med by

any defic ien cy

i n the noti ce. A . St and ard o f Rev iew In t his ca se, the tr ial courtco ncl uded t hat i t l ack ed s ubj ect -mat ter j ur is dic ti on ov er the h ousi ng auth or ity ’s ev ic ti on ac ti on. W e rev iew a tr ial cour

t' s r uli ng on s ubj ect -mat ter jur is dic ti on de nov o. Tex. N atu ral Res. Com m '

n v. I T -Da vy , 7 4 S

. W

. 3 d 8 4 9 , 8 5 5 (T e x. 200 2). W e are also called up on to rev iew how fede ral reg ulatio ns af fect th is state’s lease ter minat ion and ev ic ti on procedu re s. W e c onst ru e the text of an a dmini strati v e r ule under the s ame pr inc ipl es w e c onst ru e a s tatut e. See, e.g., Phi ll ips Petr ole um Co. v. T

exas Com m 'n on Env

tl. Q ual it y , 121 S.W .3d 5 02, 5 07 (Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2003, no p et.) ( ci ti ng7

Tex. Gen . Ind em . Co

. v. T ex. W orkers' Com

p. Comm 'n , 3 6 S

. W

. 3 d 6 3 5 , 6 4 1 (T e x. App .–A ustin 2 000 , no pe t.)) (prov iding that sta te ad min istrativ e rules an d s t a t u tes are
re v iew ed for int ent)

. W e w il l, therefore, asc ertai n and g iv e eff ectto the r ule drafter’ s i ntent for th e prov is ion s w e are c onst ru ing

. See T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 312. 005 ( Ver non 200 5) (provi ding how a cou rt should dete rmine legi slative i nte nt). W hen a trial court issues f indings of fact and conclusions of law , as the trial court did i n thi s c ase, w e may rev iew t h e f in d in g s o f factfor l eg al and factu al suffici ency and
re v iew the conc lus ion s o f law de n ov o. Si

lba ugh v. Ra mir

ez , 1 2 6 S

. W

. 3 d 8 8 , 9 4 (T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [1 stDist .] 20 0 2 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g BM C Soft ware Bel giu m , N.V. v. Ma rchand , 83 S. W .3d 789 , 794 (Tex. 2002 )). B. No ti ce By i ts firs t i ss ue, t he hous ing auth or ity as ser ts that the t ri al cour

t er re d i n c oncl udi ng that the n oti ce w as ins uff ic ien t. Lara mov ed for dis mis sal o n t h e ground that the ter minat ion noti ce did not spec ify the jud ic ial proce dure to be us ed or sp eci fy the k ind of
cr imi nal act iv ity

thatLara w as all eg ed to hav e eng ag ed i n. The r ele v ant federal re g ula ti on p ro vid e s t h a twh e n t h e p u b li ch o u s in g a u t h o ri t y: is not re q uired to afford the tena nt t he oppo rt uni ty for a hear ing under

the PH A admi nis trati v e g ri ev ance procedu re for a g ri ev ance co ncer nin g the lea se ter minat ion ( see § 966. 51( a) (2 )) , and the PH A has dec ide d to ex cl ude such griev ance f rom t he PHAg riev ance proced ure, th e no tice of lease ter minat ion under

parag ra ph ( l) (3 )( i) of thi s secti on s hal l: s peci fy the j udi ci al ev ic ti on procedu re to be used by the PH A for ev ic ti on of t he tenant , and st ate that HU D has deter mined that th is e v ic ti on procedu re prov ide s t he oppor tuni ty for a hear ing i n c our

t t hat c ontai ns the b asic e le m e n ts of due proces s a s d efined i n H UD reg ula ti ons. 24 C .F .R . § 966.4( l) (3 )( v )( B) ( emphasi s a dded)

. The hous ing a u thori ty co ntends that Tex as has onl y

one jud ic ial ev ic ti on procedu re , and , t heref o re , it s g ener icnoti ce w as8

suffici ent. W e di sag re e. Und er our r ule s o f statu tor

y co nst ru cti on, "s hal l" is g enerall y co n st ru ed to be mandator

y , butmay

be d irect or

y w hen t h is int er pr etati on i s mos t c onsi ste nt w it h the Leg is lat ur e's i ntent

. See T EX . G OV ' T C OD E A NN . § 311. 016 ( Ver non 199 8) ; Barsho p v. Me din a C ounty

U nder gr ound Water

C onser vat ion D is t. , 925 S.W .2d 618 , 629 (Tex. 1996 ). T o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r t h e L e gi s la t u re in t e n d e d a p ro vis io n t o b e m a n d a t o ry o r d ir e c t o ry,
w e c onsi der

the pla in meanin g of the w ords used, as w ell as the enti re act , it s nature and obj ect , and the cons eq uence s that w oul d foll ow from eac h c onst ru cti on. Albe rtson's, In c. v. Sinclair

, 984 S.W .2d 9 58, 9 61 ( Tex . 199 9) ; Chisholm v. Bew ley Mill s , 155 Tex . 400 , 287 S.W .2d 9 43, 9 45 (Tex . 1956). Ev en i f a sta tutor y req uirement i s mand ator y , t his does not mean tha t c ompli ance is neces sar il y j ur is dic ti onal

. Sinclair

, 984 S.W .2d a t 961 ; Hines v. Hash , 843 S.W .2d 4 64, 4 67 ( Tex . 199 2) ; Schepps v. Pr esby ter ian H o sp. of Dal

las , 652 S.W .2d 9 34, 9 38 ( Tex . 198 3)

. W h en a sta tute is si len t abo ut t he c onseq uence s o f
non com pliance , w e look to the statu te's purpose to de term ine th e prop er conse quence s. Si nclair , 9 8 4 S .W .2d a t 961 ; Sche pps, 652 S.W .2d a t 937 -3 8; Chisholm , 287 S.W .2d a t 945. T itle 24 of

the Cod e of

Federa l Reg ulatio ns regulates p ublic ho using auth orities. The appl ic abl e s ect ion st ates thata no ti ce of leas e ter minat ion “ shal l spec ify the jud ic ial eviction proced ure to b e use d.” See 2 4 C

. F

. R

. § 9 6 6

. 4 ( l ) ( 3 ) ( v ) ( B ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. We
conc lud e that th e pl ain meani ng , nat ur e, an d obj ectof thi s p hrase is to mandate that a housi ng auth or ity

noti fy a ten ant o f the j udi ci al ev ic ti on procedu re to be us ed. Par t of the purp ose o f

Title 2 4 is to af

ford ad equate due process to t ena nts. Fo r ex am ple, te nan ts are enti tl ed to a g ri ev ance hear ing before jud ic ial ev ic ti on unl ess ce rt ain ex cept ion s apply

. SeeT h o s e e x c e p ti o n s i n c l u d e : (A ) a n y c rim i n a l a c ti v i ty th a t t h re a te n s th e h e a l th , s a f e ty o r ri g h t t o 3 peac e f u l e n j o y m e n t o f t h e p r e m i s e s o f o t h e r r e s i d e n t s o r e m p l o y e e s o f t h e PHA; ( B) a n y v i o l e n t o r dr ugr el at ed cr i m i nal act i v i t y on or offsuch pr em i ses; or ( c) any cr i m i nal act i v i t y t hat r esul t ed i n f el ony conv i ct i on of a ho us eh ol d m em be r. 24 C

. F

. R

. § 9 66

. 51 (a)(2)(i )( A )- (B ) ( 20 08 ). 9 24 C

. F

. R. § 9 6 6.5 1(a)(1) (2008 ). Ev en when an ex cept ion ap plies an d a gri evance 3 hea ring is not required, th e regulation s man dat e tha t the judicial proced ure use d to evict a ten antmustposse ss the ba sic eleme nts of due process. 24 C.F.R. § 96 6.4 (1)(3)(v )(B). In t his ca se, readi ng “ shal l” as di re cto ry i nst ead of m andator

y w oul d di lut e the procedu ra l safeg uards promulg ated by the Dep artment of Hous ing and Ur ban D ev elo pment. The noti ce in th e i n sta nt c ase did not spec ify w hic h c our

t w oul d hear

the ev ic ti on act ion

. In fact , i t w as so defici ent t hat i t did n ot ev en at tempt to pa rrot t he te xt of the
re g ula ti on. See, e.g., Edgec o mb v. Hous. Aut h. of Ver non , 824 F.Sup p. 31 2, 31 4 (D. Con n. 19 93) (pr o vidi n g that a noti ce w hic h merely par ro ts the b ro ad l ang uag e of the
re g ula ti ons is i nsuffici ent)

. Therefor e, t he hous ing auth or ity ’s first is sue is ov er ru led

. C. Subject-Matt er Juris diction By its secon d issue, the ho using a u tho rity argues thatthe trial court erred in dism issing its deta iner action beca use L ara w as no t harm ed by an y a lleged insuf

f iciency in the n oti ce. The ho usi ng auth or ity arg ues that w e s houl d foll ow the Fi rs t C our

t of Appeal s, w hic h has hel d tha t not ic e defects i n hous ing auth or ity ca ses are s ubject to a har m anal y si s becau se protec ti ons in the federal re g ula ti ons ex is t "to ins ur e tha t t he te nant is adequa tely informe d of the na ture of

the evidence against him so thathe can ef fectively
re but t hat e v ide nce" ra ther than to create jurisdic ti on. See Ne a ly v. S o u t h la w n Pa lms Apar tm ents , 196 S.W .3d 3 86, 3 92 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 6, no pet. ) (c it ing Esc ale ra v. N.Y. City Hou s. Auth. , 425 F .2d 8 53, 8 62 ( 2d C ir . 197 0) ).10

Lara c ounters b y

arg uin g thatthe noti ce re q uirements v esther w it h a fundamenta l due proces s r ig ht t hat i s j ur is dic ti onal

. She c ontends thatthi s “ jur is dic ti onal r ig ht” i s n ot subj ectto a har m anal y si s. In ess ence, Lara ask s us to create a di ff er ent r ule than the one crafted by

i n Nealy , buther only ration ale is thatshe do es no t agree wi t h t h e rule tha t is alread y on the b o o k s . W e are persua ded byneith er the h ousin g aut hority’s nor La ra’s
arg uments

. Ins tead, w e l ook to ou r ow n c ases for g uid ance. In Hinojosa , this Cour

t w as confron ted w it h a si mil ar notic e arg ument. See Hinojosa
v. Hou s. Auth. of Cor

pus Chr is ti , 896 S.W .2d 833 (T e x. A pp. –Corpu s Christi 199 5, w rit dis m'd w .o.j .)

. The hous ing auth or ity i n Hinojosa iss ued a defecti v e not ic e, w hic h the tenantasser

ted in county

courtw ar ra nted a di smi ss al. Id

. a t3 8 5

. T h e h o u s in g a u t h o ri t y, how ev er , mov ed to abat e i ts detain e r a ct io n s o tha t i t c oul d c ur e the defects

. Id

. The county courtabated the procee din g , and the cas e w as ev entual ly rei nst ated and tr ied to a j ur y on t he mer it s. Id

. On ap peal , t he te nant arg u e d t h at t he tr ial co urt er re d by not dis mis si ng the a ct io n. Id

. a t8 3 6

. W e fo u n d t h a tt h e “[ i] n m a n y a re a s o f t h e la w, aba tem entis approp riate w hen prerequisites are missing,” and w e he ld tha t the trial court did not er r in abati ng rather than di smi ss ing the cas e. Id . at836- 37. Impl ic it in the Hinojosa ca se is th e not ion tha t the notice requirem ent s conta ined in the a ppl ic abl e federa l re g ula ti ons ar e notj ur is dic ti onal

. See id.; see a lso Tor re s v . C or pus Chr is ti Hous. Aut

h. , No

. 1 3 -0 4 -5 9 1 -C V , 2 0 0 6 T e x. A p p . L E XI S 6 8 7 2 , *4 -5 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, no p et.) (mem. op.) ( conc lud ing thatal leg ed defic ien ci es in a housi ng auth or ity ’s noti ce to t er minat e l e a se must be rais ed befor e the tr ial co urt or the compl ain t i s w aiv ed)

. The tr ial courtin this case, therefore, er re d in dismi ss ing the housi ng author ity ’s deta ine r act ion

. Ins tead, the tr ial co urt s houl d hav e abat ed th e hous ing11

author ity ’s ac ti on s o tha t i t c oul d prov ide Lara w it h the fede rall y mandate d not ic e. See Hinojosa , 896 S.W .2d at 836. Therefor e, the hous ing auth or ity ’s se cond is sue is su sta ine d in par t. III . C ONCL US I ON The tr ial co urt’ s d is mis sal order i s rev ersed, and the c ase re manded back to the t ri al
cour t w it h i nst ru cti ons to ab ate t he unde rl y ing ac ti on unt il su ff ic ien t not ic e i s p ro v ide d.

_________

_________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 17t h day

of Jul y , 200 8.