### NUM BER 13-0 8-00 604- 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 DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ JOH N O. R OBE RT S, A pp ellan t,
v . SEA N LE EDY , 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 awN o . 1 of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d G arza M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez John O. Rob erts appeal s f ro m a s ummary j udg ment rendered ag ain st him in county court in a forcible de taine r action. Se an L eed y , app ellee h erein, has m oved to dism iss this app eal for w antof

jurisdiction. W e dism iss the ap pea l.2 I

. B A CK GRO UND Rob erts filed a pe ti ti on in the Jus ti ce of t he Peac e Cou rt , Preci nctN o. 1, Pl ace 2 of Hidalgo Coun ty, T exas, seekin g to ev ict Lee dy f rom “the prem ises locate d a tP rogreso Ai rp ort H ang er” on g ro unds tha t L eedy w as in default on rental pay ments. R ober ts w on the a cti on i n j ust ic e of the peace cour t, and Leedyappealed to County Cour t atLaw N o. 1 of Hi dal g o C ounty

. In cou nty court, Lee dy mo v ed for sum ma ry judgmen t on jurisdiction al groun ds. Acc ordin g to the mot ion for s ummary j udg ment, Leedy

w as occ upy ing the premis es under an oral lea se with Dian e M . Pe terson w hen R ober ts demanded t hat L eedy v acat e the proper ty and ins ti tuted ev icti on proceed ing s. R ober ts al leg ed that he had ob tai ned t it le to the p ro per

ty by purchas e f ro m Al lan L. Peterson, D ian e’s hus band. In cont ra st, D ian e tes ti fied under oath that: she lea sed the proper ty to Leedy ; she ow ned the p ro per ty ; t he proper ty w as her so le and s eparate proper ty becau se she had acq uired itas a g ift from her fath er; her hu sban d ha d no aut hority to conv ey the prope rty to Robe rts; there w as a title dis p u te be tw een Lee dy and Rob erts as to t he ow nershi p of the proper ty ; and sh e w as seekin g to setaside th e alleged con v eyance of the pro perty in a separat e law sui t , still pen ding in a dif

feren t cause in a sepa rate district cou rt procee ding. In short, Pe terson ’s tes ti mony

es tabl is hed t hat t here w as a di sput e reg ardin g ti tl e to the p ro per ty

. The county

courtgranted Leedy ’s m oti on for su m m a ry judg ment, and this appeal ensue d. Leedy

has now mov ed to di smi ss the appeal on g ro unds thatthe proper ty at is sue in this law suit is a comm ercial pro p e rty , thu s dep riv ing the courts of jurisdiction over this matter

. Mo re than ten day s hav e pass ed si nce appel lee ’s moti on to di smi ss w as filed , andT h e c a u s e o fa c tio n f o r f o r c ib le e n tr y a n d d e ta in e r a n d f o r c ib le d e ta in e r a r e d is tin c t: th e f o r m e r is 1 a p p r o p r ia te w h e n d e te r m in in g th e r ig h t to im m e d ia te p o s s e s s io n w h e n th e in itia l e n tr y w a s u n la w f u l o r f o r c ib le and t he co nt i nued possessi on i s unl awf ul , and t he l at t er i s appr opr i at e when t he i ni t i al ent r y was l awf ul butt he c o n ti n u e d p o s s e s s i o n o f th e p re m i s e s i s u n l a w fu l

. C om pa re T EX . P ROP
. C OD E A NN . § 24. 001 ( Ver non 2000) ("F o rc i b l e E n try a n d D e ta i n e r") , w i th id

. § 2 4 .0 0 2 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 0 ) ("F o rc i b l e D e ta i n e r") ; see Yart o v. G i lli land , 287 S. W

. 3d 8 3, 87 n. 3 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 200 9, no pet

. )

. I n t he pr esent case, t he act i on i s one f or f or ci bl e de t ai ner . H owev er , fo r pur poses ofdet er m i ni ng t he j ur i sdi ct i on o ft he l owercour t s i n t hi s case, t he di fferen c e b etwe en t he t w o a c t i on s i s no t rel eva nt. Al l w e m us t de t erm i ne i s w he t he r s pe c i fi c evi de nc e o f a ti tl e d i s p u te , re q u i rin g r e s o l u ti o n b e fo re th e im m e d i a te r i g h t to p o s s e s s i o n c a n b e d e c i d e d , w a s p re s e n te d to th e lo w e r c o u rts

. See id. ; see a lso H opes v. Buckeye Ret

. C o. , N o. 13- 07- 00058 , 200 9 T ex. App. LEX I S 2244, at ** 3-4 (T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i A pr. 2, 20 09 , no pe t

. ) ( m em . op . ). 3 appel lan t has not file d a re spons e to the motion to dis mis s. T his m atter is before us on t he document s fil ed to date , t he moti on to di smi ss , and the cl er k’ s record. II. F OR C I BLE E NTRY A ND D ET AI N ER The forci ble deta ine r act ion i s t he procedu ra l v ehi cl e by w hic h the r ig ht t o i mmediat e poss ess ion of

real proper

ty i s d eter mined. W

ar d v . M alo ne , 1 1 5 S

. W

. 3 d 2 6 7 , 2 7 0 (T e x. 1 App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, pet. deni ed). Suc h an act ion i s i ntended to be a speed y and ine x pensi v e means for resol v ing the q uest ion of w ho is enti tl ed to immediate pos ses si on of proper

ty w it hout re sor

ti ng to an acti on upon ti tl e. Har re ll v. Cit izens Bank

& T ru st Co. , 296 S.W .3d 321 , 325 (Tex. App. –T exarkana 200 9, pet . dism’d ); Falcon v. En signia , 976 S.W .2d 336 , 338 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 199 8, no pet. ). The o n ly is s u e i n a forcible det aine r action is the rig ht to actu al posse ssion of the pre mise s. Ma rshal l v. Ho us. Aut

h. , 198 S. W .3d 7 82, 7 85- 86 ( Tex . 200 6) ; seeT EX . R. C IV . P. 74 6. In case s of forcible en try or forc ibl e det ain er , t he “ meri ts of the ti tl e s hal l not b e adj udi cat ed.” T EX . R. C IV . P. 746; Hon g Kong

D ev. , Inc. v. N

guyen , 229 S.W .3d 4 15, 4 34 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 2007, no pet .)

. By st atute , a jus ti ce cour

t has j ur is dicti on ov er

a forci ble deta ine r act ion

. See T EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . § 24.004 (V er non 200 0)

. In k eepi ng w it h the foreg oin g prohi bit ion4

agai ns t th e adj ud i c at i on o f t i tl e i n a forc i bl e de ta i ne r a c ti on , a j us ti c e c ou rt i s ex pressly depr iv ed of j ur is dicti on to dete rmi ne or adj udi cat e ti tl e to la nd. SeeT EX . G OV ' T C OD E A NN . § 27. 031( b ) ( 4 ) ( V e r n o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 )

. F ro m j u s t i c e c o u rt , a fo rc i b l e d e t a i n e r s u i t ma ybe appeal ed to the coun ty co urt for a de nov o rev iew

. SeeT EX . R. C IV . P. 7 49; Hong Ko ng Dev., In c. , 229 S.W .3d a t 433 -3 4. The appel lat e j ur is dicti on of the county cour t is co nfined to the jur is dicti onal limi ts of the j ust ic e c our t. Sal aym eh v. Pl

aza C entr

o, LL C , 264 S.W .3d 431, 435 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2008, no p et.) ; HongKongDev., Inc. , 229 S.W .3d a t 434

. Therefore, ne it her the jus ti ce c our

t, nor a c ounty

co urt on appeal , c an re sol v e ques ti ons of ti tl e bey ond the immediat e ri g ht t o pos ses si on. See B acon v. Jor dan , 763 S.W .2d 395 , 396 (Tex. 1988 ). A forc ibl e det ain er

acti on i s cumul ati v e, not ex cl usi v e, of ot her re medies a par ty may hav e i n th e c o u rt s o f

t his Sta te, inc lud ing a s uitto tr y ti tl e. Sal

aym eh , 264 S.W .3d a t 435- 36; Rice v. Pi

nney, 51 S.W .3d 7 05, 7 09 (T ex. App.– Dallas 200 1, no pet. ); se e Sc ott
v. Hewitt , 127 Tex . 31, 35, 90 S. W .2d 8 16, 8 18- 19 ( 1936)

. The di spl aced par ty i s e nti tl ed to br ing a s eparate sui t in the dis tr ict cour t to deter mine q uest ion s of tit le. Sal aym eh , 264 S.W .3d at 435 -36. Accord ingly , forcible detaine r suits in justice court ma y run con currently
w it h an acti on in another courtev en if the other

acti on inv olv es adju dic ati on of matte rs that coul d resul t i n a d ifferent deter minat ion of poss ess ion from t he dec is ion rendered i n the forci ble deta ine r sui t. Id. ; Hon g Kong D ev. , Inc ., 229 S. W .3d a t 437

. To prev ail in a forci ble detai ner act ion , a pl ain ti ff i s req uired onl y

to show su ff ic ien t ev ide nce of ow nershi p to demonst ra te a super ior r ig ht t o i mmediat e pos ses si on. Rice , 51 S.W .3d a t 709

. Howev er , w here the r ig ht t o i mmediat e pos ses si on nec ess ar il y req uires5

re sol uti on of a t it le d isp u te , a just ic e c our t has no j ur is dicti on to ente r a j udg ment. Id. Accordin gly , a justice cou rt is notdep riv ed o f jurisdiction me rely

by the ex istence of

a title dis pute; i t i s d epr iv ed of j ur is dicti on onl y if re sol uti on of a ti tl e di sput e i s a prereq uis it e to deter minat ion of the r ig ht to i m m e d iat e pos ses si on. See i d. ; cf. D ass, Inc. v. Sm it h , 206 S.W .3d 1 97, 200 -01 (Te x . App .–Dallas 2 006 , no pe t.) (holding that , w here relationsh ip betw een part ies w as one of buy er-s ell er , det er minat ion of ri g ht t o i mmediat e pos ses si on of prope rty nece ssarily

required reso lution of

title disput e). The cl aimed ri g ht of i mmediat e poss ess ion as betw een Rob erts, th e al leg ed purchas er

of the prop erty , and Leedy , w ho rente d the proper ty f ro m Di ane, the o w ner of the p ro per

ty , dep ends on a re sol uti on of the ti tl e dispu te betw een Rober ts and Di ane. If Rob ert s d i d n o th a v e t i t l e t o t h e p ro p e rty , h e d i d n o th a v e t h e r i g h tt o e v i c tL e e d y . The re sol uti on of the ti tl e di sput e i s neces sar il y inter tw ine d w it h the iss ue of pos ses si on, a nd the d eter minat ion of ti tl e to the s ubj ectproper ty i s t he di spos it iv e i ss ue. See Dass, Inc. , 206 S.W .3d at 200- 01. Therefore, both the jus ti ce and county courts la ck e d jur is dicti on to resol v e the ti tl e di sput e. Mo re ov er , as as ser

ted b y Leedy in his moti on to dis mis s, w e hav e no jur is dicti on to consid er the issue of

posse ssion in a forcible de taine r action i f the dispu ted prem ises w ere used for c ommerc ial pur poses . SeeT EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . § 24.007 (V er non 200 0) ( "A final j udg ment of a c ounty co urt i n an ev icti on s uitmay not be appe ale d on t h e i ss ue of posse ssion un less the prem ises in question a re being used for residen tial purp oses o nly."); Terra XXI, LTD. v. Ag Accep tan ce Corp ., 280 S.W .3d 414, 416 (Tex . App.–Amar il lo 2008, pet . denied) ; Hon g Kong D ev. , Inc , 229 S.W .3d a t 431 -3 2; V o lu m e M i l l wo r k , In c . v . W.6

Housto n Airport Corp ., 218 S.W .3d 722, 726-2 7 (Tex . App.–H oust on [1st Di st. ] 200 6, pe t. d e n ied); Carlson's Hill Coun try Beverag e, L. C. v. W esting hou se Rd. Joint

Vent ure , 957 S.W .2d 9 51, 9 52- 53 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1997, no pet.)

. The prohi bit ion ag ain st cons ide ri ng poss ess ion i ncl udes cons ide ra ti on of any findi ng thati s e ss enti al to, depe n d e n t on, or pr imar il y co ncer ned w it h the is sue of poss ess ion

. HongKongDev., Inc. , 229 S.W .3d a t 431- 432 ( col lecti ng auth or it ies ). In s uppor

t of hi s mot ion to dis mis s, Leedy poi nts to l ang uag e i n R ober ts’ peti ti on for ev icti on des cr ibi ng the premis es as the “ Prog re so Ai rp ort H ang ar i n Prog re so, Tex as, ” the aff ida v itfrom D ian e referr ing to the p ro per ty as “ the a irstr ip proper ty ,” the aff ida v itfrom Leedy w hic h s tates thathe “ pla nned t o manufacture metal w or ks on t he proper ty ,” and the
w ri t of att achment , w hic h des cr ibe s the proper ty as the “P ro g re so airstr ip . . . inc lud ing the Ai rs tr ip Han g ar and sur ro undi ng area, adj acent sto ra g e bin s c ontai ned w it hin fenced a re a, th e Ho rse Pa st u re t o t h e E a sto f t h e H a n gar , a n d t h e a irs tr ip run n in g so u th al o n g th e ed ge of the dra in ditch, but no t includin g any fa rm land .” It is undi sput e d t h a t t he proper ty at is sue herein , w hic h c onsi sts of an ai rs tr ip, an air por th a n g e r , s t o ra g e b i n s , a n d re l a t e d re a l ty , w a s n o tu s e d “ fo r re s i d e n t i a l p u r p o ses o nly.” T EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . § 24.007; see Volum e M il lwor k, Inc ., 218 S. W .3d a t 727 (h old ing thatthe cour

t l ack ed j ur is dicti on ov er pos ses si on of an ai rp ort han g a r o r any f inding by the trial court that was essen tial to the issue of posse ssion of the ha ngar). The re is no e v ide nce in the record before us th a t th e p ro p erty w as used “o nly ” as a resi dence

. SeeT EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . § 24.007. Con seq uentl y , thi s cour t does not h av e j ur is dicti on of t he appeal as itrela tes to the i ss ue of pos ses si on. SeeT EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . § 24.007.7 III

. C ONCL US I ON The Co u rt , h a ving ex amined and fully co nsi dered th e doc uments on fil e, i s o f the o p in io n t h a tt h e a p p e a l s h o u ld b e d i s m i s s e d fo r wa n to f ju ri s d ic t io n . Ac c o rd in gl y, we GRAN T Le e dy ’s moti on to di smi ss , VA CATE the jud g ments bel ow , and D ISM ISS the appeal for want o f jur is dicti on. NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Del iv ered and filed the 3rd day of June, 2010.