Court Opinion

ID: 9942465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 07:11:37.554502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:07.287315
License: Public Domain

Reversed and Remanded and Opinion Filed February 14, 2024

                                  S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                              No. 05-23-00131-CV

   SPCP AUGUST OWNER, LLC D/B/A ELEVEN600 APARTMENTS,
                        Appellant
                           V.
  WILLIAM GOLLNIK, MACIE WHITAKER AND ALL OCCUPANTS.,
                        Appellees

                On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-06269-A

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
            Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Garcia
                       Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness
      Appellant SPCP Augusta Owner, LLC (Landlord) appeals the county court’s

dismissal of its forcible detainer action against Appellees William Gollnik, Macie

Whitaker, and “All Occupants” (together, Tenants). In two issues, Landlord asserts

the county court (1) erred in dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction, and (2)

abused its discretion by dismissing the suit without prior notice. We reverse and

remand.
                                        BACKGROUND

       Landlord operates an apartment complex, Eleven600 Apartments, located on

Audelia Road in northeast Dallas. On January 12, 2022, Tenants entered a one-year

written lease with Landlord to rent a unit at the complex. After Tenants failed to pay

rent on several occasions, Landlord gave Tenants notice to vacate on July 6, 2022,

in accordance with the Texas Property Code. After Tenants failed to surrender

possession of the premises, Landlord filed a forcible detainer (eviction) suit against

Tenants in the justice court on September 7, 2022. Landlord sought possession of

the premises, unpaid rent, attorney’s fees, and costs of court. Tenants were duly

served and appeared for a bench trial before the justice court on October 10, 2022.

After considering the law and the evidence, the justice court ruled in favor of

Landlord. The court ordered that Landlord recover possession of the premises,

$3,450.00 in rent owed, interest, and costs.1

       On October 14, 2022, Tenants sought to appeal by filing a “Statement of

Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond,” which Landlord did

not contest. Tenants then deposited the equivalent of one month’s rent as required

by the justice court. The justice court approved the appeal and forwarded the case

file to the county court clerk. The case was assigned to the Dallas County Court at

Law No. 1. On November 16, 2022, Landlord filed its First Amended Petition for

Forcible Detainer in the county court. Landlord again sought possession of the

   1
       The justice court did not award attorney’s fees.
                                                  –2–
premises, damages (including unpaid rent), attorney’s fees, costs, and post-judgment

interest. Then, on December 29, 2022, and without prior notice, the county court

issued an order dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction. Landlord timely

appealed to this Court.

                                    STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law we

review de novo. Texas Nat. Res. Conservation Comm'n v. IT–Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849,

855 (Tex. 2002). Similarly, we review de novo a county court’s dismissal of an

appeal to that court. Laird v. Benton, 470 S.W.3d 572, 574 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.).

                                               ANALYSIS

         In two issues, Landlord asserts the county court: (1) erred in dismissing its

suit for want of jurisdiction, and (2) abused its discretion in dismissing the case

without prior notice.2

I.       County Court Had Jurisdiction Over the Appeal of the Forcible
         Detainer Suit

         In its first issue, Landlord contends the county court erred in dismissing its

case for want of jurisdiction. We agree.

         The justice court of the precinct where the property is located has jurisdiction

over eviction suits, including a forcible detainer action. TEX. PROP. CODE §

     2
         Pro se Appellees did not file any brief in this Court.
                                                     –3–
24.004(a); Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705, 708 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.).

The plaintiff seeking possession of the property may also seek rents due, attorney’s

fees, and costs. TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.3, 510.8(b); see also TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.006.

A party may appeal a judgment in an eviction case by filing an appeal bond, making

a cash deposit, or filing a “Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs”

within five days after the judgment is signed in the justice court. TEX. R. CIV. P.

510.9(a), (f). The filing of a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs

perfects the appeal. TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.9(f). Jurisdiction over the appeal vests in the

county court for a trial de novo. TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.10(c); Rice, 51 S.W.3d at 708.3

       Here, Landlord filed a petition for eviction in the appropriate justice court.

Landlord pleaded for possession, unpaid rent, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest, as

permitted by law. TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 24.002, 24.004(a), 24.006; TEX. R. CIV. P.

510.3. The record reflects Tenants were duly served and appeared before the justice

court. The justice court found in favor of Landlord and ordered that Landlord recover

possession of the premises, rents due, interest, and costs. Tenants then timely filed a

“Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond,” which

Landlord did not contest. These actions perfected appeal. TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.9(f).

Tenants later deposited the equivalent of one month’s rent with the court, as required.

See TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.9(c)(5). The justice court forwarded the case files to the

   3
       “County court” includes a statutory county court. TEX. R. CIV. P. 500.2(f).
                                                 –4–
county court, and Landlord filed an amended petition for forcible detainer. In other

words, all procedures were met for the case to proceed de novo in the county court.

TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.10.

      We do not perceive anything in the record that would deprive the county court

of jurisdiction over the appeal from the justice court. However, without prior notice

to the parties, the county court dismissed the case without prejudice. In its order of

dismissal, the county court stated:

      Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Dallas Civil court
      rules, this case is hereby dismissed for the following reason(s):

      (x)    Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction

      This dismissal is related to the Appeal and Trial de Novo of Justice of
      the Peace Cause No. JE-22-05210-A. The Judgment from Said Justice
      of the Peace Court was vacated upon perfection of the Appeal to the
      County Court at Law.

      The county court did not give any additional detail as to why it believed it

lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Presumably, the court believed the vacatur of the

justice court judgment meant there was nothing to appeal, depriving the county court

of jurisdiction. It is true that “perfection of an appeal to county court from a justice

court for trial de novo vacates and annuls the judgment of the justice court.” Brown

v. Hawkins, No. 05-16-01427-CV, 2018 WL 1312467, at *5 n.4 (Tex. App.— Dallas

Mar. 14, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting Villalon v. Bank One, 176 S.W.3d 66,

69–70 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied)). And, “a county court

cannot affirm or reverse the judgment of the justice court nor can it remand the cause

                                          –5–
to the justice court.” Id. However, the vacatur of the justice court judgment upon

perfection of the appeal does not divest the county court of jurisdiction. It simply

means the county court hears the case de novo, as if there had been no previous trial.

TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.10(c); see also Breitling v. LNV Corp., No. 05-15-00677-CV,

2016 WL 3625450, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 5, 2016, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (mem.

op.) (party’s complaint about the actions of the justice court became moot on appeal

to the county court for a trial de novo).

      Accordingly, the county court had jurisdiction over the appeal from the justice

court. The county court erred in concluding otherwise and dismissing Landlord’s

suit. We sustain Landlord’s first issue.

II.   Failure of Notice

      In its second issue, Landlord complains of the county court’s dismissal of its

suit without prior notice. We need not address this issue, given our disposition of

Landlord’s first issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

                                   CONCLUSION

      The county court had jurisdiction over the appeal of Landlord’s forcible

detainer suit. Therefore, the county court erred in dismissing the case for want of

jurisdiction.

                                            –6–
      Accordingly, we reverse the county court’s judgment and remand for

proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

                                         /Robbie Partida-Kipness/
                                         ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS
                                         JUSTICE
230131F.P05

                                       –7–
                                    S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                   JUDGMENT

SPCP AUGUST OWNER, LLC                         On Appeal from the County Court at
D/B/A ELEVEN600                                Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas
APARTMENTS, Appellant                          Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-06269-
                                               A.
No. 05-23-00131-CV           V.                Opinion delivered by Justice Partida-
                                               Kipness. Justices Pedersen, III and
WILLIAM GOLLNIK, MACIE                         Garcia participating.
WHITAKER AND ALL
OCCUPANTS, Appellees

       In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is REVERSED and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    It is ORDERED that appellant SPCP AUGUST OWNER, LLC D/B/A
ELEVEN600 APARTMENTS recover its costs of this appeal from appellees
WILLIAM GOLLNIK, MACIE WHITAKER AND ALL OCCUPANTS.

Judgment entered this 14th day of February, 2024.

                                         –8–