### NUM BER 13-06- 0040 2-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
M A NU EL C HA

VEZ , A pp ellan t,

v. M A RT IN CA NT U, A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e C o u n ty C o u rt a t L aw N o . 5 of H ida lgo C ou nt y , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef o re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G ar za , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza T his case arises f rom a f orcible entry and det aine r action brought by appe llee Martin C a ntu. See T EX
. P ROP
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 24. 001- .002 (V er non 200 0)

. Appel lan t, Ma nuel Cha v ez , c hal len g es the sum m a ry j udg ment aw ar ded by

the tr ial co urt i n fav or

of Can tu. By three issues, Chavez alleges that: ( 1) the trial cou rt lacked jurisdiction ; (2) summ ary judgme nt w as imp rope r becau se ma terial f act issue s ex ist e d ; a n d (3) the trial court
ex ceede d i ts ju ri sdi cti on i n r uli ng that C hav ez ’s ti tl e c lai ms w er e v oid

. W e r ender j udg ment dis mis si ng the caus e for lac k o f jur is dic ti on i n the co unty co urt.2 I. B A CKGRO UND In Novemb er 200 5 , C a n t u pu rchase d the prope rty locate d at 12 18 Fron tage in Alam o, T exas from Virg inia Bravo. T h e p ro p e rt y had bee n occu pied byChavez and his
w ife s inc e 1998. After signin g t h e purch ase cont ra ct w it h Br av o, C antu made r epeated
re q uest s, by

reg ula r mail and per sonal deli v er y , to notify Chav ez that he no l ong er had the ri g ht to occ upy the pr oper ty

. Cha v ez re fused to v acat e the pr oper ty , c lai ming that he h ad enter ed i nto an oral contr act w it h Brav o f or sale of the prop erty

. Cha v ez asser ted that he had made a dow n pay ment t o Brav o of $2,000, and that he had made monthl y pay ments to Br av o from Ma y 1995 to Dec ember 20, 2005. Both Can tu an d Br av o, ho w ev er , c lai med tha t the mo nth ly

paymen ts f rom Cha v ez w ere rent paymen ts and that no con tract f or sale
w as ev er co nsummated

. Seek ing to ex pel Chav ez , Cantu f il ed a v er ified or ig ina l peti ti on for forci ble entr y and detai ner w it h the Ju sti ce Cou rt , Pr eci nct 2, Pl ace 1, of H ida lg o Cou nty

. Cha v ez r espon ded by fil ing a g ener al deni al and a ple a to the j ur is dic ti on, c lai ming that the jus ti ce cour t l ack ed subj ect matte r jur is dic ti on. Spec ific all y , C hav ez cl aimed that, bec ause he asser ted that he had equitable title to the prope rty , title to th e prop erty w as at is s u e a n d the ref ore jur is dic ti on di d not l ie in the j ust ic e c our t. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 7 46 ( sta ti ng that i n a s uit for f orcible en try

and deta iner, “the merits of the title shall no t be ad judicat ed”). Th e Justice of the Pea ce sc hedul ed a hear ing for F ebr uar y 21, 2006. Bec ause Cha v ez di d not appear at th e he aring, the justice court en tered a def ault jud gmen t against C h a vez on Feb ruary 26, 2 006. On Ma rc h 3, 2006, Cha v ez filed a peti ti on for w ri t of cer ti or ar i w it h C ounty

C our t at Law N umber 5 of H ida lg o C ounty

. The count y court iss ued the w ri t on the s ame day

. On Ma rc h 29, 2006, C antu filed a mot ion for s ummary j udg ment, all eg ing that t h e re wa s no
ev ide nce that Cha v ez had eq uit abl e ti tl e to the p ro p e rty

. The coun ty co urt g ra nted the
mo tion and r end ered sum ma ry judgme nt i n f avor of Can tu on June 14, 20 06. The court then is sued a w ri t of pos ses si on on June 30, 2 006, commanding C hav ez to v acat e theC h a v e z’ s n o ti c e o f a p p e a l w a s fi l e d b e y o n d th e th i rty-d a y ti m e p e rio d s p e c ifie d b y th e ru l e s
. See 1 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26. 1. However , C hav ez f i l ed a m ot i on f or ext ensi on o f t i m e t o f i l e a not i ce of app eal on August 2 , 2 0 0 6 , w h i c h w e g ra n te d o n A u g u s t 2 4 , 2 0 0 6

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2 6 .3

. T h e n o tic e w a s th e r e f o r e tim e ly f i l ed. C an t u d i d n ot fi l e a n a pp el l ate bri ef.

2 3 pr emis es. C hav ez fil ed a noti ce of appeal on J uly 17, 2006. 1 II. D I S CUS S I ON Sect ion 51 .00 2 of

the T exas Ci v il Practice and Reme dies Cod e, ent itled “Certiorari From Just ice Court,” provides as f ollows:

(a ) After final j udg ment i n a c ase tr ied i n j ust ic e c our t i n w hic h the jud g ment or

amount in cont ro v er sy ex ceeds $250, ex cl usi v e of cos ts, a perso n ma y

rem ove th e case f rom th e justice cou rt to the coun ty court by w rit of certiorari. (b ) In a count y

i n w hic h the ci v il j ur is dic tio n o f t h e county

co urt has been t ra nsferr ed from t h e c ounty co urt t o the di str ic t c our t, a per son may remo v e a case cov ered bythis section f ro m t h e j u s tice cou rt to the district court by w rit of

certiorari. (c ) If a w ri t of c erti or ar i to re mov e a cas e is ser v ed on a j ust ic e of the pe a c e , t h e j u s t i c e s h a l l i mm e d i a t e l y m a k e a c e r t i fi e d c o p y o f t h e e n t r i es ma de on his docke t and of the bill of

costs, as provided in case s of app eals, and s hal l immedi atel y

se nd th em and the or ig ina l paper s in the cas e to the cl er k o f the c ounty

or di str ic t c our

t, as appr opr iat e. (d) Th is se cti

on does not appl

y t o a c ase of f

or ci ble entr y a nd detai ner
. T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E § 51 .00 2 (Verno n Sup p. 20 07) (em pha sis adde d). Nei ther par ty has dir ect ed us to any auth or it y

su ppor ti ng the appl ic abi li ty

—or ev en the e x is tenc e—of an e x cept ion to thi s s tatut or y r u le

. W e c oncl ude, ther efore, that the

2 count y co urt w as w it hout subj ect matte r jur is dic ti on to g ra nt C hav ez ’s peti ti on for w ri t of
cer ti or ar i. See C ra wfor

d v . Si gla r , 470 S.W .2d 915 (Te x
. Civ . App .–T exarkana 19 71, w rit ref ’d n.r.e. ) ( “the rem edy of certiorari is not av ailable in f orcible ent ry and deta iner cases”);
see a lso Aw de v. Dab eit , 938 S.W .2d 3 1, 32 (Tex . 1997) (p er cu ri am) (n oti ng that appel lan t
suc ces sfull y

chall eng ed the jur is dic ti on of the count y co urt bec ause the c iv il pr act ic e and
reme dies cod e “prohib its f iling a w rit of certiorari in a f orcible de taine r case”). C havez’ s f irst4

is sue is su sta ine d. III
. C ONCL US I ON W e r ev er se the judg ment of the count y

court at law

and re nder

judg ment di smi ss ing the c ause for lac k of jur is dic ti on. Beca use w e f ind that jur is dic ti on di d not l ie in the c ounty
cour t, w e need not a ddr ess C hav ez ’s r emaini ng i ss ues. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.1.

_________

_________

_________

___ DO RI C ON TRER AS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 29t h day

of Jul y , 200 8.