### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-18-00195- CV
Va Lyncia Wild er, A ppellan t

v. MWS Capital, LL C, Appellee

F ROM CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 2 O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY NO. 18- 0236 -CC2, HO NORAB LE LAURA B . B ARKER, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Va L y ncia Wil der appea ls a trial-cour t judgme nt in a forc ible-deta iner suit awa rding MWS Capital, L L C, possession of re s i d en t i al rea l proper ty in Wil liamson County (the Property ). On appea l, Wil der, appea

ring pro se, asser

ts that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the forc ibledetainer action because she i s a member of t he Tonkawa of Texas Tribe and be cause the P roper ty is “lawf ully owned tribal restric ted lands” such that her remova l from the Property violates fede ral law. See 25 U.S.C. § 177 (purc hases or g rants of lands from I ndians); 18 U.S

. C. § 1151 (I ndian country define d). We dismiss t he appe al as moot.
BACK GR OUND I n 2015, Wil der e x ecute d a dee d of trust g ranting a first lien sec urity interest in the Property to Sun W est Mortg ag e Company , I nc. The deed of trust provided that:I f the Property is sold pursuant to [foreclosure ], Bor rowe r or any p er s on holding possession of the Property throug h Bor rowe r shall immediately surre nder possession o f th e Pr o p e r

ty to th e p u

r c h a s e r a t th a t s a le

. I f p o s s e s s io n is n o t s u r r e n d e r e d , B o r

r o w e r or such person shall be a tenant at suffe ranc e an d m ay b e re moved by writ of possession or other c ourt proce eding

. After Wil der defa

ulted on the loan and failed to cure the defa ult, the Property was so l d t o MWS Capital at a nonjudicial fore closure sale conducte d on J anuar y 2, 2018, by a substitut e trustee. MWS Capital rec eived a substitut e trustee’ s deed memorializing the convey ance . MWS Capital then sent written not ices to Wil der instructing her t o vacat e t h e P roper ty and advising her that, if she failed to do so, MWS Capital would file a forc ible-deta iner suit ag ainst her for possession of the Property

.

When Wil der fa i l ed to vacate the Property , MWS Capital filed a forc ible-deta iner

ac t ion in justice court ag ainst her. The justice court g rante d possession of the Property to MWS Capital on J anuar

y 30, 2018. Wil der appea led the judgme nt to the county court at law. Following

a de novo bench trial, the trial court rende red judgme nt g ranting MWS Capi t al p o s s es s ion of the Property

. The trial court order ed that, to suspend enfor ceme nt of the judgme nt, Wil der was require d to de posit $48,693 in c ash into the court’s reg istry within ten day s. Wil der timely filed a notice of appea l but failed t o m ak e the require d pay ment to superse de the judgme nt. Acc ording ly , the t rial court issued a writ of poss es s i on on April 10, 2018. The writ was executed the following day

. Wil der then filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court seeking a s t ay o f t h e eviction proce eding s and an order vaca ting the eviction o rd er . T h i s Court denied the petition for writ of

ma n d a mu s . S e e I n r e W il d e r , N o . 0 3

- 1 8

- 0 0 2 2 3

- CV , 2 0 1 8 WL 1 7 8 8 5 3 4 ( T e x. A p p . — A u s ti n A p r . 1 3 , 2018, orig

. proce eding ) (mem. op.). Wil der’ s persona l proper ty was remove d from the Property on April 17, 2018. 2DISCUSSIO N MWS Capital asser

ts that, beca

use Wil der is no longe r in possession of the Property and has no rig ht to curr ent possession, the appea l of this forc ible-deta iner action is moot. We ag ree . A forc ible-deta iner action is a proce dure to deter mine the rig ht to immediate possession of rea l proper ty when there is not unlawful entry
. W illiams v. Bank of

New Y ork Mellon , 315 S.W .3d 925, 926 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). To preva il in a forc ible-deta iner action, a plaintiff need not prove title. Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.3(e) (“The court must adjudicate the rig ht to actua l possession and not title.”); Dormady v. Dinero Land & Cattl e Co. , 61 S.W .3d 555, 557 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, pet di sm’d w.o.j.). I nstead, the plaintiff need only prese nt sufficient e vidence of owne rship to demonstrate a superior rig ht to i m m ed i ate possession. Hong Kong Dev ., Inc. v. Nguyen , 229 S.W .3d 415, 433 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2007, no pet.). Fa ilure to superse de a forcibledetainer judgme nt does not divest the appellant of t h e ri g ht to appea l, but the judgme nt may be enf o rced, including the issuance of a writ of possession evicting the tenant from the premises. Marshall v. Housing Auth. of the City of San Antonio , 198 S.W .3 d 7 8 2, 786-87 (Tex. 2006); Mc Do n ald v. Fede ral Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n , No. 03-13-00770- CV, 2014 WL 1433061, at *1 (Te x . App.—Austin Apr. 10, 2014, no pet.) (m em . o p . ). An appea l from a forc ible-deta iner action become s moot if appellant is no longer i n p o s s es s i on of the proper ty , unless appellant holds and

asser ts “a potentially meritorious claim of rig ht to curr ent, actua l possession.” Ma r s h a l l , 198 S.W .3d

. at 787.

Her e, Wil der did not superse de the judgme nt and MWS Capital has had possession of the Proper

ty since Apr il 2018, when the writ of poss ession was ex ecute d. Wil der has asser ted,

3howeve r, t hat t he tri al co u rt lacke d jurisdiction to rende r t he judgment of possession. As best we

can deter mine, Wil der’ s arg ument is that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over this forc ibledetainer action beca

use, acc ording to her, fede ral law prohibits alienating an “Abor igine Americ an I ndian from their restric ted lands and proper ty , abolishi n g their Aborig inal Title.” As set forth above, a forc ible-deta iner action adjudicate s only the rig ht to immediate possession of proper ty ; the court may not adjudicate title. Thus, t o t h e ex t ent Wil der’ s arg ument prese nts a challeng e to the validity of t he foreclosure sale, which is the event that transfe rre d title to the Property from her to MWS Capital, such cha lleng e must be asse rted in a se para te suit. See R odriguez v. C itimortgage, Inc. , No. 03-10-00093- CV, 2011 WL 182122, at *2-3 (Tex. Ap p . —Austin J an. 6, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“[T]he substance of her arg ument is an attack on the validity of the fore closure and sale throug h which Citi mortg ag e acquir ed the proper ty —a challeng e to Citi mortg ag e’s title that cannot b e r a is e d in th is [f

o r c ib le

- d e ta in e r ] p r o c e e d in g . ” )

. A ny s u c h c h a ll e n g e h a s n o b e a r in g o n th e is s u e in th is a c ti o n , w h ic h is li mi te d to w h ic h p a r ty h a s s u p e r io r r ig h t to im me d ia te p o s s e s s io n o f th e Pr o p e r ty
. I n that reg ard, the landlord-tena nt rela tionship cre ated by the deed of trust in the event of fore closure “provide d an i n depende nt basis on which the trial court could deter mine the issue of immediate possession without resolving the issue of title to the proper ty .” Rice v. Pinney , 51 S.W .3d 705, 712 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.). This Court, apply ing the Rice analy sis, has consistently held that defe cts in the fore closure proce ss cannot be used either to neg ate a landlord-tena nt re l at i o nship provision in a deed of trust or to raise a qu es t ion of title depriving the justice or county courts of jurisdiction to resolve the question of immediate possession. See, e.g. , W ilder v. Citi corp Tr. Bank, F.S.B. , No. 03-13-00324- CV, 2014 WL 1207979, at *2 (Tex

. Ap p . — Au s tin Mar. 18, 2014, pet. dism’d w .o.j.) (mem. op.); Jaimes v

. Fede ral Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n , No. 03-13-00290- CV, 2013 WL 47809741 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec

. 4, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). The trial court had jurisdiction to

adjudicate the rig ht of immediate possession of the Prope rty
.

To the ex tent that Wil der arg ues that the Property is fede ral tribal land such that

owner ship there of is g overne d by fede ral, as opposed to state, law, we note that the Property is located in Wil liamson County , Texas. The Property is not located on, or part of, fede ral tribal land. 1

CONCLUSION A writ of possession of the Property was executed in A pril 2018 afte r Wil der failed to superse de a judgme nt in a forc ible-deta iner action awa rding possession of the Property to MWS Capital. Wil der has not asser ted a potentially meritorious claim of rig ht to curr ent, actua l possession of the Proper

ty . Consequently , this appeal is moot and is dismis sed.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and B ourland Dismissed as Moot Filed: Nove mber 21, 2018

I n a suit Wil der broug ht ag ainst MWS Ca p i t al , L L C, in fede ral district court in J une 1 2018, Wil der alleg ed that MWS Capita l “t respassed on tribal land to make a claim” and “made invalid claims of owner ship and authority over tribal proper ty .” See W

ilder v. MW

S Capital , LLC

. , No. 1:18-cv-264- RP-AWA, 2018 WL 3603082 (W.D. Tex. J une 12, 2018). The U.S. Mag istrate rec ommended dismiss ing Wil der’ s suit and noted that the suit “appe ars to be an attempt by Wil der to av o i d fore closure of her property by making a spurious claim t hat t he property , despite t he fact that it is a run-of- the-mill suburban home—is tribal land.” Id. at *2 n.2. 5