Court Opinion

ID: 5108727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-02 09:52:11.585512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:02.780357
License: Public Domain

Case Number: 05-08-01102-CV 06/15/2010 Case stored in record room 06/03/2010 Notice sent to Court of Appeals 05/28/2010 Motion for Rehearing - Disposed proceeding denied 04/27/2010 Case forwarded to Court 04/26/2010 Motion for Rehearing - Filed 03/29/2010 M/E/T to file Motion for Rehearing disposed Granted 03/26/2010 Phone call from Clerk's Office 03/25/2010 M/E/T to file motion for rehearing 03/12/2010 Petition for Review disposed Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction 01/12/2010 Case forwarded to Court 01/11/2010 Response to Petition for Review waived 12/28/2009 Petition for Review filed 12/28/2009 Appendix Filed 12/21/2009 Second m/e/t to file petition for review disposed Granted 12/18/2009 Second m/e/t to file petition for review filed 12/18/2009 Phone call from Clerk's Office 11/06/2009 M/E/T to file petition for review disposed Granted 11/05/2009 Phone call from Clerk's Office 11/03/2009 M/E/T to file petition for review filed
 OPINION
Paula Boleware and Sharnette Hyter appeal from a judgment in a forcible detainer action awarding possession of property to U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for the structured asset investment loan trust, 2005-9. In two issues, Boleware and Hyter contend the trial court erred in awarding possession of the property to U.S. Bank because the evidence is legally insufficient and against public policy. We overrule Boleware and Hyter's issues and affirm the trial court's judgment. *Page 316 
On August 18, 2005, Hyter purchased the property and executed a deed of trust in the amount of $85,500. The property was sold at a non-judicial foreclosure sale on June 3, 2008. A substitute trustee's deed was executed conveying the property to U.S. Bank. On June 6, 2008, U.S. Bank provided Hyter and any person in possession of the property with written notice to vacate the property. At the time, Boleware was an occupant of the property. When Boleware and Hyter failed to vacate the property, U.S. Bank filed a petition for forcible detainer in a justice of the peace court. U.S. Bank obtained judgment for possession of the property, and Hyter appealed the judgment to the county court at law.
The county court at law conducted a bench trial. U.S. Bank presented three exhibits: (1) the Substitute Trustee's Deed; (2) the Deed of Trust; and (3) the notices to vacate and demand for possession sent to Hyter and all persons in possession of the property. All three exhibits were admitted without objection. Boleware testified at the trial. She asked the trial court to let her stay in the house because she had been living there, she had recently had a baby, and she "would like to buy the house." The trial court awarded judgment for U.S. Bank. This appeal timely followed.
In their first issue, Boleware and Hyter contend the evidence is legally insufficient to support the judgment because the exhibits admitted into evidence constituted inadmissible hearsay. However, when the trial court asked whether there were any objections to the admission of the three exhibits, Hyter's attorney replied: "No objection, Your Honor."
Error is waived if the complaining party allows the evidence to be introduced without objection. TEX.R.APP. P. 33.1(a); BayArea Healthcare Group, Ltd. v. McShane, 239 S.W.3d 231, 235
(Tex. 2007). Because no objection was raised to the admission of the exhibits, Boleware and Hyter have waived the right to complain about the evidence on appeal. We overrule Boleware and Hyter's first issue.
In their second issue, Boleware and Hyter contend that, as a matter of public policy, the trial court erred in awarding possession of the property to U.S. Bank. This argument was not raised in the trial court. By failing to raise this argument in the trial court, Boleware and Hyter have failed to preserve this complaint for appeal. TEX.R.APP. P. 33.1(a); RT Realty, L.P.v. Texas Utilities Elec. Co., 181 S.W.3d 905, 918
(Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.). Accordingly, we overrule Boleware and Hyter's second issue.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.