i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No. 04-08-00161- CV Annette S. MUE CKE , Appellant
v . J ay KHA DE M , Appellee Fr om the County

Court at L aw No. 2, B exar County , Texas Trial Court No. 335619 Honora ble Irene Rios, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion , J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion , J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: March 18, 2009 AFF I RMED This is an appea l from a f

orcible de tainer pr ocee ding in which possession of t he property was aw ar d e d to a p p e ll e e Jay

Kh a d e m. A p p e ll an t A n n e tt e M u e c k e r a is e s e le v e nis s u e s o na p p e a l. We
a ff ir m.04
- 08
- 00 16 1- CV

- 2- DI SCU SSIO N Th e so le iss ue in a

fo rc ibl e de ta ine r a c tio n is wh ic h p art y ha s th e ri g ht t o im me diate possession of

the prope rty . Dormady v. Dinero L and & Cattl e Co., L.C., 6 1 S. W. 3 d 5 5 5 , 5 5 7 ( T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 20 01 , p e t. d ism ’d w. o. j.)
. He re , it is und isp ute d th a t no le a se a g re e me nt e xists betwee n the par

ties. The trial c ourt hea

rd testimony

from Ms. Muec ke that Mr. Kha dem’s for mer wife a llowed her

“in for a few day s until Mr. Kha dem, or Jay , returne d and I was to ca ll him and he
wo uld te ll m e ‘ye s’ or

‘n o’ if Ic ou ld s tay . He sa id I c ou ld sta y .” Mr . K ha de m te sti fi e d h e or ig ina lly
re nte d th e ho us e a t is su e in thi s dis pute fo r his ow n us e , the n bo ug ht the ho us e , late r d e e de d it to h is fathe r , an d , u lt im a te ly , h is f a th e r g av e it b a c k to h im
. A t t

h e ti me M r . K

h a d e m’ s f

o r me r wife allowed Ms. Mue cke to use the house, the house was empty . Ms. Mue cke c halleng ed Mr. Kha dem’s
ow ne rs hip of

the pr op e rt

y on the g ro un ds that he ha d no pr oo f h is f a the r e ve r d e e de d th e pr op e rt y back to him. Howe ver, in a for cibl e deta iner a ction, the plaintiff is not require d to prove title; Dormady, 61 S.W .3d at 557; beca use, “the merits of the title shall not be adjudicated.” T EX . R. C IV . P. 74 6. Mr
. Kh a de m wa s re qu ir e d on ly to pr e se nt su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e of

ow ne rs hip to d e mon str a te his superior rig ht to imm ediate posse ssion. Dormady, 61 S.W .3d at 5 5 7
. On this recor d, we conclude Mr. Khade m demonstrated a superior r ight to immediate possession of the proper ty . On appe al, Ms. Muecke makes seve ral a rguments, among which is t h at s h e est ablished a
su pe ri or ri g ht ba se d on he r a dv e rs e po sse ssi on of the pr op e rt y . Ho we ve r, Ms. Mu e c ke did no t r a ise thi s ar g u m e n tb e f

o r e t h e t r i a l c o u rt , n o r

w a s an y e v i d e n c e s u

b m i t t e d a tt h e h e ar i n g t o s u

p p o rtt h is contention. We need not rea ch Ms. Muecke ’s ot her issues on a ppeal be cause the issue of whe ther Mr. Khade m demonstrated a superior r ight to immediate possession of the proper ty is disposi tive.04
- 08
- 00 16 1- CV

- 3- CO NC LU SION We o ve rr ule Ms. Mu e c ke ’s iss ue s o n a pp e a l and a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

Sandee B ry an Mar ion , J ustice