Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 12 , 2022
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00353

- CV

SHAKEDRIA WEST , Appellant

V.
THE ESTATE OF WANDA CASTILLE, REGINALD C ASTILLE & MONICA HUDSON (POWER OF ATTORNEY) , Appellee s
On Appeal from t h e Co unty Civil C our t at Law No
. 1

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1159146

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The Estate of Wanda Castille, Reginald Castille, and Monica Hudson ( Power of Attorney) (together, “ Appellees ” ) brought this forcible detainer action

a g ainst appellant Shake dria West , seeking to evict West and her family from Regin ald Castille ’ s ho use . The trial court signed a final judgment awarding Appellees possession of Castille ’ s house

. West appeal ed th e final judgment and raises five issues chal lenging th e2

denial of her motion to reopen evidence, the trial court ’ s jurisdiction, and the date the final judgment was signed. For the reasons below, we overrule these issues and affirm the trial court ’ s final judgment

. B ACKGROUND Appellee Monica Hudson is Reginald Castille ’ s sister. In November 2018, Castille executed a power of attorney authorizing Hud son to make decisions for him concerning his property. Around this time, Castille ’ s daughter, appellant Sh akedria West, and her family moved into his h o use. In August 2020, Appellees brought a f orcible detainer action in justice court , seeking to evict West and her family from Castille ’ s home

. A hearing was

sc hed uled in September 2020, after wh ich the justice court signed a judgment awarding Appellees possession of the home

. West appealed to the county court at law and a trial was held in October 2020 via v ideo conference. A reporter ’ s record of these proceedings was not included in the appellate record.
After trial, West filed a n “ Emergency M otion t o Reopen Evidence , ” asserting that: [t]here exists relevant and persuasive evidence that was no t introdu ced
a t the trial of this matter, that is conclusive as to the central issues in this litigation

— the incompetency of Reginald Castille to execute a pow e r of attorney as o f November 2018 and his consent to permit his daughter Shakedria West Williams to res ide in his home for as long as she desired. The evidence consists of a video as well as detailed testimony as to incompete ncy that consists of more t ha n Mr. C astill e ’ s 2018 diagnosis for dementia. On November 11, 2020, t he tr ial court held a hearing on West ’s motion to re open evidence. West ’s a ttorney sought to introduce evidence showing that C astille lacked the requisite capacity to sign the 20 18 pow er o f attorney , asserting that Castille was dri nking exces sive amounts of alc ohol and had been diagnosed with3

dementia

. To support these contentions , West ’ s counsel offered (1) West ’ s declaration signed November 11, 20 20 (the day of the hearing) , and (2) a Se ptember 2020 video show ing Castille telli ng West she could stay in his ho us e. West ’ s declara tion was inc lud ed in the clerk ’ s record; however, the September 2020 video was not included as part of the appellate record. In response, Appellee s ’ counsel ass erted that (1) West ’ s dec laration was

“ entirely self

- servi ng ” ; and (2) challenges to the validi ty of the po wer of attorney should be pursued in the pr obate court rather than as part of the forcible detainer action. In addition, Appellee s ’ co unsel also arg ued that West:

can ’ t say that the video from September of 2020 is the be all end all and then s ay the power of attorney from Novem ber of 2018 is obviously void because of his capacity issues. They can ’ t have it both ways, Judge.
The t rial co urt orally de n ied West ’s motion to reop en evidence. In response, West ’s attorney requested “ a period of time that would give us enough time to file in probate court and get relief, ” specifically, “ 14 days. ” The trial court stated that West ’ s request was “ grante d. ”
T h e trial court subsequentl y signed a final judgment on November 18, 2020, granting Appel le es a j udgment for possession of Castille ’ s ho us e. The judgment states that a writ of possession should issue if West did not vacate the pr emises by Nove mber 2 5, 2020 (14 days after the hearing)

. West filed a notice of appeal.
A NA LYSIS
West r aises five issues on a ppeal , which we summarize as follows:
1. t he trial court abused its discretion by denying West ’ s motion to reopen evidence; 2. the t rial c ourt erred by r etaining j urisdiction ov er the underlyin g suit given “ the exist ence of a dispute as to title ” ; and4

3. the trial court erred by entering j udgment before expiration of the 14

- day period West requested to seek relief in the probate court

. For the reasons belo w, we overru l e these issues and affirm the trial court ’ s final jud gment.
I. Motion to Reopen Evidence In her first three issues, West chal lenges the trial court ’ s denial of her motion to reopen evidence.
We review a trial court ’ s decision to deny a party ’ s motion to o ffer additiona l evidence fo r an abuse of discretion. In re Hawk , 5 S.W.3d 874, 876

- 77 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet .). Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 270 , a trial cour t may permit additional evidence to be offered at any time when it clearly appear s necessary to the administration of ju stice

. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 270. “ Rule 270 allows, but does not req uire, a trial court to permit additional evidence. ” Ab ante & Jopio LLC v. UR Props. I, L.P. , No. 14

- 18

- 00792

- CV , 2020 WL 4524674, at * 4 (T ex. App.

— Houst on [14th Dist.] Aug . 6, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). In deciding whether to grant a motion to reopen evid ence, trial courts consider whether (1) the moving party s howe d due diligence in obt aining the evidence; (2) the proffered evidence is deci sive; (3) the recept ion of such evidence will cause u ndue delay; and (4) granting the motion will cause an injustice. In r e J.M.W. , 470 S.W.3d 544 , 557 (Tex. App.

— Hous ton [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). A trial court ’ s ruling o n a motion to reopen shou l d no t be disturbed if th ese factors
are not met

. Id .; se e also S teven s v. Stevens , No. 11

- 19

- 00397

- CV , 2021 WL 6140067, at * 5 (Tex. App.

— Eastland Dec. 30, 20 21, no pet.) ( mem. op.).
Because the record does not show that the proffered evidence w ould hav e bee n decisive with resp ect to the underlying issues in t he forcible detainer action ,5

t he denial of West ’ s motion t o reopen evi dence does not constitute an abuse of di scretion
An a ppellant bear s the burden to bring forward a record sufficien t to show tha t the trial court erred. Turner v. Ewing , 625 S.W.3d 510, 52 2 n.3 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. denied) ; see also Christiansen v. Prezelski , 782 S. W.2d 842, 843 (Tex. 1990) (per cu riam). In the absence of a re cord containing the relevant evid e nce considered by the t rial court in making its ruling, “ [w]e indulge every presumption in favor of the trial court ’ s ruling. ” Bryant v. United S hortline Inc. Assurance Servs., N.A. , 9 72 S.W .2d 26, 31 (Tex. 1998). Here, the appellate record does not in c lude (1) a transcript of th e October 2020 trial , or (2) t he Se ptember 2020 video allege dly showing Castille telli ng West she could stay in his ho us e
. Without this information , we cannot conclude that the proffered evidence would have been helpful (mu ch l e ss d eci sive ) in the forcible deta iner action. See In re Ha wk , 5 S.W.3d at 87 7 ( the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to reopen evidence beca use the record did not show that the missing tape would be decisive on any issue ).
Moreov e r, a t the hearing on West ’ s motion to reopen, West ’ s coun sel indicate d that t he additional evidence was aimed at challenging the validity of Hudson ’ s power of attorney. But the only issue in a forcible detainer action is which party has the right to imme d iate possession o f the property. See Goodman

Delaney v. Granth am , 48 4 S.W.3d 171, 174 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 201 5 , no pet.). C hallenges to the validity of a power of attorney are outside the scope of a forcible detainer a ction. See, e.g. , Este v e z v . Selene Fin. LP , No. 05

- 17

- 00224

- CV , 2018 WL 1324692 , at * 1

- 2 (T e x. App.

— Dallas Mar. 15, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ( in a forcible detainer action, the defendant challenged certain deeds that “ were executed via powers of attorney that were no t int r oduc ed into6

evidence ” ; the court held that these c hallenges “ mus t be resolve d , if at all, in a separate suit ” ). Accordingly, West ’ s additional evidenc e challenging the validity of Hudson ’ s power of attorney would not have been decisive in the underlying f orc i ble detainer action. See id

. ; Goodman

- Dela ney , 484 S.W.3d at 174.
We overrule West ’ s first three issues.
II. Jurisdiction Over the Underlying Suit
In her fifth issue, West asserts the trial court erred when it entered ju d gmen t because there was an iss ue co ncerning the title to Castille ’ s home. Speci ficall y, West contends Castille orally granted her a life estate with respect to his house. The only issue to be resolved in a forcible detainer action is the right to immedia te po ssession of the property; the merits of title are not adjudicated. Yarbrough v. H

ousehold Fin. Corp. III , 455 S.W.3d 277, 280 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist .] 20 15, no pet.) ; Pinnacle P remier Props., Inc. v. Breton , 447 S

. W.3d 558, 563 (Tex. App.

— Hous ton [ 14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.)

. Justice courts do not have jurisdiction to determine or adjudicate title, and neither does a county
court exe rcising appellate jurisdiction in a forcible detainer action. Yarbrough , 455 S.W.3d at 280.
When there are issue s con cerning both title and pos session, the issues may be litigated in separate proceed ings in different courts with appropriate juri sdiction. Id . But when a f

orcible detainer action presents a genuine issue of title so intertwined with the issue of poss essio n that a trial court would be required to determine title before awarding possessi on, then a justice court lacks jurisdiction to resolve the matter. See Pi nnacle P remier Props., Inc. , 447 S.W.3d at 564

.

“ Accordingly, a justice court is not deprived of ju risdiction merely by the e xistence of a title dispute; it is deprived of jurisdict ion only if resolution of a title disput e is7

a prerequisite to determinati on of the right to immediate possession

. ” Salaymeh v. Plaza Centro, LLC , 264 S.W.3d 431, 435 ( Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 200 8, no pet.). Here, the record does not show that th e resolution of a title dispute was a prerequisite to determining the righ t to im mediate ly possess Castille ’ s house

. As stated above, West fail ed to provide a transcrip t of the October 2020 trial for the appellate r ecord

. Moreover, th e only evidenc e West cites to support her contention that a life estate was created was her declaration and the Se ptember 2020 video

— neither of which were admitted into evidence. Accordi ngly, the record does not show that the justice court and coun ty court lacked jur isdiction over Appellees ’ forcible detainer action.
We overrule West ’ s fifth issue.
III. Trial C ourt ’ s Judgment
A t the November 11, 20 18 hearing , the tri al court granted West ’ s r eques t to allow her 14 days to pursue her power

- of

- attorney challenges in the proba te court. T he trial court subsequently signed a final judgment on November 18, 2020, grantin g Appel le es a j udgment for possession of Castille ’ s ho us e and ordering t hat:

a Writ of Posses sion issue to the proper officer comm anding him to seize possession of said pr emises and deliver same to [Appellees] after said Writ of Possession has been duly fi led by [Appellees] if [West] ha[s] not vacated the herein described pre mises by Novembe r 25, 2020.
In her fourt h issue , West contends that si gning a final judgment before the expiration of th e 14

- day period was an “ abuse of di scretion ” and “ legally

unreaso nable. ” We disagree. First, West do es not cite any authority to supp ort this8

content ion. See Tex. R. App. P . 38 .1( i) (the appellant ’ s brief “ must contain a cle ar and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citatio ns to authorities a nd to the record ” ). Second, although t he trial court signed its final j udgment only sev en days after the Novemb er 11 hearing, the final judgment states that the wr it of possession would not issue until November 25, 2020

— 14 days after the hearing. This i s consistent with the relief West ’ s at torney requested at the hearing o n the motion to
reopen , specificall y , th e “ 14 days ” needed to “ give us enough time to file i n pr obate court and get relief[.] ” Accordingly, the t rial court did not err by signing a fi n al judgment l ess than 14 days after t he hearing on the motion t o reope n. We overrule W est ’ s fourth issue.
C O NCL USION
W e affirm the trial court ’ s November 18, 2020 final judgment.

/s/ Me a gan Hass a n Justice

Pa n el c onsi st s of Justice s Jewell, Zimmerer , an d Ha ssa n
.