Court Opinion

ID: 9811512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:23:01.949608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:41.413202
License: Public Domain

PATRICK A. PIRTLE, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority opinion finds that, in the context of a forcible detainer proceeding following foreclosure of a deed of trust, where the opposing party contests the superiority of the right to possession based upon an allegation of wrongful foreclosure, a plaintiff (in this case Ag Acceptance) is not required to prove title but is only required to show “sufficient evidence of ownership to demonstrate [its] superior right to immediate possession.” (emphasis added). Notwithstanding apparent au*419thority to the contrary,1 where the superiority of Ag Acceptance’s right to immediate possession manifestly depends upon the validity of its trustee’s deed, an issue simultaneously being contested by a wrongful foreclosure proceeding in the district court, I fail to see how Ag Acceptance could ever meet its burden without title being an issue. In cases involving a genuine issue of title, neither the justice court nor the county court on appeal has jurisdiction. Haith v. Drake, 596 S.W.2d 194, 196 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.). For these reasons, I would sustain Appellants’ first point of error, reverse the judgment of the trial court, and enter judgment dismissing the forcible detainer cause of action for want of jurisdiction.

. The majority opinion relies heavily upon this Court's prior opinion in Terra XXI v. Ag Acceptance Corp., No. 07-04-0325-CV, 2004 WL 2559940 (Tex.App.-Amarillo Nov. 10, 2004, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (not designated for publication), to support its position that in order to prevail, in the context of a forcible detainer proceeding following foreclosure of a deed of trust where the opposing party contests the superiority of the right to possession based upon an allegation of wrongful foreclosure, a plaintiff is not required to prove title but is only required to show sufficient evidence of ownership to demonstrate a superior right to immediate possession. That earlier opinion in turn relies heavily upon Villalon v. Bank One, 176 S.W.3d 66, 70 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied), which in turn relies heavily upon Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705, 709 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, no pet.). Ultimately, Rice relies upon the Texas Supreme Court decision in Scott v. Hewitt, 127 Tex. 31, 90 S.W.2d 816 (1936). A review of that case reveals that it is not based upon an issue of wrongful foreclosure.