Evictions of Residential Tenants in Texas

Topics Covered

Introduction to Evictions
Law Applicable to Evictions
Forcible Detainer Versus Forcible Entry and Detainer
Default Notices to Tenants
Landlord’s Pleadings in Justice Court
Tenant’s Pleadings in Justice Court
Possession Versus Title Issues
Trial in the Justice Court
Writ of Possession
Appeals from Justice Court

INTRODUCTION TO EVICTIONS

Eviction is a judicial process by which an owner recovers possession of real property and, if appropriate, a judgment for unpaid rent, attorney’s fees, and court costs against a defaulting tenant or occupant.

This article focuses on residential eviction proceedings that are conducted in various justice court precincts spread around Texas’ 254 counties. Justice courts are busy places nowdays. When a landlord arrives ready to do his first eviction, he may be told that there are dozens of cases ahead of him on the “forcible docket.” The quantity of these cases is often so great that each case averages only a few minutes.

The Texas Supreme Court describes evictions as follows:

Chapter 24 of the Property Code grants justice courts jurisdiction in eviction suits, including suits for forcible entry and detainer and forcible detainer. Eviction suits are designed to provide a summary, speedy, and inexpensive remedy for the determination of who is entitled to possession of the premises.

[A]s a consequence, eviction suits are limited in scope and effect, with the sole focus being the right to immediate possession of real property.

An eviction suit in justice court is not exclusive, but cumulative of any other remedy that a party may have and matters beyond the justice court’s limited subject matter jurisdiction may be brought in another court of competent jurisdiction.

[A]n eviction suit in justice court may run concurrently with another action in another court without issue—even if the two proceedings overlap and the other action adjudicates matters that could result in a different determination of possession.

See Westwood Motorcars, LLC v. Virtuolotry, LLC, 689 S.W.3d (Tex. 2024).

Eviction Terminology

A tenant who remains in possession after expiration of a lease is a holdover tenant. However, tenants under a lease do not comprise the entire universe of tenancies. There are also tenants at will and tenants at sufferance. These terms refer to persons who were originally on the premises with the landlord’s permission or acquiescence but without a lease. If a tenant under a lease holds over without consent from the landlord, he is a tenant at sufferance. If holding over occurs with landlord consent, that person is a tenant at will.

LAW APPLICABLE TO EVICTIONS

Applicable Law

Eviction cases are governed substantively by Chapter 24 of the Property Code and procedurally by Rules 500-507 and 510 which are a subset of Part V of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The entirety of Part V is entitled “Rules of Practice in Justice Courts” and these other rules may at times apply as well. If the case is appealed from justice to county court the rules change.

The Government Code is also involved (Gov’t Code Sec. 37.031) in that it states that justice courts are not empowered to rule on issues of title to land.

There is also much case law relevant to evictions, particularly when it comes to suits for possession versus suits that require a determination of title.

Forcible Detainer Versus Forcible Entry and Detainer

Forcible detainer applies when an owner seeks to evict a person lawfully in possession (a tenant) while forcible entry and detainer (FED) occurs when a person without legal authority (a trespasser) enters the premises and refuses to leave.

One often hears these terms used interchangeably but there is a conceptual difference. The Texas Supreme Court explains in Westwood:

Though the terms forcible detainer and forcible entry and detainer are sometimes used interchangeably, they are distinct legal actions governed by separate statutory provisions. . . .

Generally, forcible entry and detainer occurs when a person enters the property of another without legal authority or by force and refuses to surrender possession on demand. . . . [In contrast,] Forcible detainer occurs when a person whose initial entry was lawful refuses to surrender possession on demand. . . . Both types of eviction suits [must be originally] filed in justice court. . .

Note that there is also a difference between the two eviction causes of action in terms of procedural and evidentiary requirements. Yarto v. Gilliland, 287 S.W.3d 88 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2009, no pet.).

Forcible Detainer Versus Forcible Entry and Detainer

The primary causes of action are forcible detainer and forcible entry and detainer. The forcible detainer statute reads:

Prop. Code Sec. 24.002. Forcible Detainer

(a) A person who refuses to surrender possession of real property on demand commits a forcible detainer if the person:

(1) is a tenant or a subtenant willfully and without force holding over after the termination of the tenant’s right of possession;

(2) is a tenant at will or by sufferance, including an occupant at the time of foreclosure of a lien superior to the tenant’s lease; or

(3) is a tenant of a person who acquired possession by forcible entry.

(b) The demand for possession must be made in writing by a person entitled to possession of the property and must comply with the requirements for notice to vacate under Section 24.005.

The forcible entry and detainer (FED) statute reads:

Sec. 24.001(a-b). Forcible Entry and Detainer

(a) A person commits a forcible entry and detainer if the person enters the real property of another without legal authority or by force and refuses to surrender possession on demand. . . . [This cause of action is defined as:]

(1) an entry without the consent of the person in actual possession of the property;

(2) an entry without the consent of a tenant at will or by sufferance; or

(3) an entry without the consent of a person who acquired possession by forcible entry.

Justice Court Jurisdiction

Justice courts have original jurisdiction in eviction cases (Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.3(b) and Prop. Code Sec. 24.004).

Jurisdiction to hear a forcible detainer action is expressly given to the justice court of the precinct where the property is located. A justice court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue of immediate possession which may not be infringed upon as long as the justice court determines only possession. . . .

But when a forcible detainer [eviction] action presents a genuine issue of title so intertwined with the issue of possession that a trial court would be required to determine title before awarding possession, than a justice court lacks jurisdiction to resolve the matter.

Thus a justice court is not deprived of jurisdiction merely by the existence of a title dispute; it is deprived of jurisdiction only if resolution of a title dispute is a prerequisite to determination of the right to immediate possession.

See Jelinis, LLC v. Hiran, 557 S.W.3d 159 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied). More will be said on the intertwining of possession and title issues below.

Superior Right to Immediate Possession

“The sole issue adjudicated in a justice-court eviction suit is immediate possession, and a judgment adjudicating immediate possession does not bar or have any preclusive effect on a suit in district court for damages arising out of the same landlord–tenant relationship.” Westwood Motorcars, cited above.

Justice courts cannot go beyond matters relating to possession and also adjudicate title to the property. “An action for forcible detainer is a summary, speedy, and inexpensive remedy for the determination of who is entitled to the possession of premises. . . . The only issue to be resolved in a forcible detainer action is the right to immediate possession of the property; the merits of title are not adjudicated.” Yarbrough v. Household Finance Corporation III, 455 S.W.3d 277 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.).

Proving the Right

In order for a landlord to prove “a superior right to immediate possession, [the landlord must] prove (1) [landlord] owns the property, (2) [tenant] is either a tenant at will, tenant at sufferance, or a tenant or subtenant willfully holding over after the termination of the tenant’s right of possession, (3) [landlord] gave proper notice to [tenant] to vacate the premises, and (4) [tenant] refused to vacate the premises. . . . The only dispute is whether the record conclusively establishes that [tenant’s] right of possession terminated.” Shields L.P. v. Bradberry, 526 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. 2017).

Must the landlord produce a deed?

According to Shields, the landlord must prove ownership. Does this require that the landlord produce an actual deed as a prerequisite to pursuing an eviction? No. “The plaintiff in a forcible detainer action is . . . only required to show sufficient evidence of ownership to demonstrate a superior right to immediate possession.” Anderson v. Chandler, No. 12-16-00299-CV (Tex. App.—Tyler 2017, no pet.).

In spite of the foregoing, in cases where title is likely to be disputed, it is prudent for landlord’s counsel to arrive at the hearing with a certified copy of his client’s deed to be introduced into evidence.

Concurrent Cases

An eviction suit in justice court “may run concurrently with another action in another court without issue—even if the two proceedings overlap and the other action adjudicates matters that could result in a different determination of possession. . . . That is because the justice court’s judgment is a determination only of the right to immediate possession and does not determine the ultimate rights of the parties to any other issue in controversy relating to the realty in question.” Westwood Motorcars, cited above.

DEFAULT NOTICES TO TENANTS

Notice Requirements

The forcible process begins with proper notice. In the case of a tenant’s default on an existing lease—failure to pay rent, for example—then a written 3-day notice to vacate should be given after which the landlord may file an eviction. Prop. Code Sec. 24.005. Note, however, that the lease may provide for either a shorter or longer period. The 3-day notice requirement also applies in cases of tenants at will and tenants at sufferance.

Chapter 24 of the Property Code recognizes both a “notice to pay rent or vacate” and a “notice to vacate:

Property Code Section 24.005. [Notices to Tenant]

(a) In a forcible detainer suit against a tenant whose right of possession is terminated based solely on nonpayment of rent and who was not late or delinquent in paying rent to the landlord before the month in which the notice is given, written notice . . . shall be given in the form of a notice to pay rent or vacate.

In a forcible detainer suit against a tenant whose right of possession is terminated based on nonpayment of rent and who was late or delinquent in paying rent to the landlord before the month in which the notice is given, written notice . . . may be given in the form of either a notice to pay rent or vacate or a notice to vacate.

(f3) A notice required by this section must be delivered using at least one of the following methods: (1) mail, including first class mail, registered mail, certified mail, or a delivery service; (2) delivery to the inside of the premises; (3) hand delivery to any tenant of the premises; or (4) if the parties have agreed in writing, electronic communication, including e-mail or other electronic means. [This section] does not apply if the tenant actually receives the notice.”

“The demand for possession must be made in writing by a person entitled to possession of the property. The Texas Property Code does not forbid a corporation or other business entity from using an agent to deliver demand for possession. . . . In an eviction case, a corporation may be represented by a property manager or other authorized agent [including a law firm].” Lua v. Capital Plus Fin., LLC, 646 S.W.3d 622 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2022, pet. denied).

Note that the foregoing notices are legally and conceptually different from a demand for performance of the lease. While a demand for performance may certainly be given, it is not in itself sufficient to satisfy the statutory notice requirements of the forcible detainer statute. Caro v. Houstin Auth. of Austin, 794 S.W.2d 901 (Tex.App.-Austiin 1990, writ denied).

The best practice for a landlord is to take an all-of-the-above approach and not cut the prescribed time period too close. Doing so may unwittingly provide the tenant with a defense.

Recovery of Attorney’s Fees

If a landlord wishes to recover attorney’s fees pursuant to Property Code Section 24.006, the notice to vacate must include additional verbiage. The notice “must state that if the tenant does not vacate the premises before the 11th day after the date of the receipt of the notice and if the landlord files suit, the landlord may recover attorney’s fees.” This statute permits recovery of attorney’s fees; actual collection is another matter.

Landlord Desires Possession Notice

In the case of a month-to-month tenancy (for instance, after a longer lease has expired) with no tenant default, the landlord may give a month’s written notice stating only that the landlord desires possession. No more need be said and no cause or allegation of default is necessary. If the tenant does not leave then an eviction can be filed.

In a foreclosure situation, the new owner of a foreclosed property may demand that a tenant under existing an existing lease vacate the property after at least 30 days’ written notice. Prop. Code Sec. 24.005(a).

Post-Foreclosure Eviction

Foreclosure gives the new owner title; the next step is to obtain possession.

A trustee’s deed cuts off all junior liens including purchase-money liens and mechanics liens. A valid foreclosure usually terminates existing leases as well. Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp. 417 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. 2013).

Even so, the new owner after foreclosure may not simply lock out a residential tenant. Prop. Code Sec. 92.0081.

Property Code Section 24.005(b) provides that new owners of foreclosed property must give a residential tenant in good standing “at least 30 days’ written notice if the purchaser [at foreclosure] chooses not to continue the lease.”

Eviction Notices in Executory Contract Cases

Eviction of a buyer-tenant under an executory contract (e.g., a contract for deed) is a special case. Texas law views buyers under contracts for deed as more than mere tenants, and so more care must be taken (and more requirements met) in the eviction process. Property Code Section 5.063 outlines requirements that must be followed exactly if the notice and eviction in an executory contract case are to be valid.

In the notice of default, the delinquent amount under the executory contract must be broken down into principal and interest. If the buyer-tenant has paid less than 40% of the amount due or made less than 48 monthly payments, the seller-landlord must provide a 30-day notice and opportunity to cure before seeking to regain possession of the property. If the default is not cured, a 3-day notice to vacate may be given and an eviction may proceed normally from that point forward.

If the buyer-tenant under an executory contract has paid more than 40% of the amount due or made 48 or more monthly payments, eviction is not available as a primary remedy. Pursuant to equity-protection provisions of Property Code Section 5.066, the seller-landlord must afford a 60-day notice and cure period which is then followed by appointment of a trustee and a non-judicial foreclosure. Depending on the circumstances an eviction may thereafter be required to regain possession.

What if the property is abandoned? Are notices required?

If a tenant has abandoned and vacated a leased property, the question arises as to whether notices and a formal eviction proceeding are required at all.

If true abandonment has occurred, the owner may peaceably re-enter without notice or judicial process and take possession and change the locks. However, gray areas occur when some of the tenant’s possessions remain on the premises, raising the question of whether the property has actually been abandoned or not.

Abandonment has occurred when a property is “empty, that is, without contents of substantial value . . . the term ‘substantial value’ does not mean merely substantial monetary value, but the term includes value attributable to the utility of the furniture. It is well known that furniture, because of age and condition, may have little monetary value, but to the owner or user has substantial utility, and retention in the house would evidence the absence of complete abandonment. From the evidence recited we are of the view that the reasonable mind could conclude there was furniture of substantial value in the house and therefore it was not vacant.” Knoff v. U.S. Fidelity, 447 S.W.2d 497 (Tex.App.—Houston, 1969, no writ).

If a substantial amount of personal property remains, the safer legal course for a landlord is to give notice and pursue a formal eviction, even if the tenant is nowhere to be found.

LANDLORD’S PLEADINGS IN JUSTICE COURT

In eviction cases, an individual may represent himself or be represented by an authorized agent, property manager, or attorney. Tex. Rules of Civ. P. 500.4.

Landlord’s Petition

A landlord’s eviction petition must be filed with the justice of the peace in whose precinct the property is located:

Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.3. Eviction Petition

(a) Contents. In addition to the [general justice court pleading] requirements of Rule 502.2, a petition in an eviction case must be sworn to by the plaintiff and must contain: (1) a description, including the address, if any, of the premises that the plaintiff seeks possession of; (2) a description of the facts and the grounds for eviction; (3) a description of when and how notice to vacate was delivered; (4) the total amount of rent due and unpaid at the time of filing, if any; and (5) a statement that attorney fees are being sought, if applicable.

(b) Where Filed. The petition must be filed in the precinct where the premises is located. If it is filed elsewhere, the judge must dismiss the case. . . .

(c) Defendants Named. If the eviction is based on a written residential lease, the plaintiff must name as defendants all tenants obligated under the lease residing at the premises whom plaintiff seeks to evict. No judgment or writ of possession may issue or be executed against [any unnamed tenant].

At the hearing (held not less than 21 days after the petition is filed) the justice of the peace will determine which party has the superior right to immediate possession and what monetary damages (back rent, attorney’s fees, and court costs), if any, will be awarded to a prevailing landlord. These are the only issues to be considered.

Landlord’s Suit for Possession Plus Damages

A suit for possession may be combined with a claim for unpaid rent and other monetary damages:

Tex. R. Civ. P. 500.3.(d). Eviction Case. A claim for rent may be joined with an eviction case if the amount of rent due and unpaid is not more than $20,000, excluding statutory interest and court costs but including attorney fees, if any.

The $20,000 monetary limit applies not just to evictions but to all suits for money damages that are brought in justice court (small claims cases and debt claim cases).

Either party may request a jury trial at least 3 days prior to the hearing. Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.7(b).

Judgment in a forcible case can be for both possession and damages or for possession only. Because collecting judgments against residential tenants is difficult in Texas, a residential landlord may occasionally choose to be content with a judgment for possession only.

A justice court forcible detainer action seeking possession does not prevent a landlord from seeking any other relief to which he may be entitled, although the landlord may need to go to another court to obtain it:

[Forcible detainer] is not exclusive, but cumulative, of any other remedy that a party may have in the courts of this state. If all matters between the parties cannot be adjudicated in the justice court in which the forcible entry and detainer proceedings are pending due to the justice court’s limited subject matter jurisdiction, then either party may maintain an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for proper relief.

See McGlothlin v. Kliebert, 672 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Tex. 1984).

TENANT’S PLEADINGS IN JUSTICE COURT

Tenant Answer to Eviction Petition

A tenant may but is not required to file a written response to the landlord’s eviction petition. Failure to file an answer or appear on the trial date may result in a default judgment:

Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.6: Trial Date; Answer; Default Judgment

(a) Trial Date and Answer. The defendant must appear for trial on the day set for trial in the citation. The defendant may, but is not required to, file a written answer with the court on or before the day set for trial in the citation.

(b) Default Judgment. If the defendant fails to appear at trial and fails to file an answer before the case is called for trial, and proof of service has been filed in accordance with Rule 510.4, the allegations of the petition must be taken as admitted and judgment by default rendered accordingly. . . .

Tenant Defenses

Tenant defenses in an eviction case (such as they may be) are not permitted to extend beyond a narrow boundary—namely (1) arguments that pertain to the superior right of possession and (2) any rights or defenses granted by statute (Chapter 92 of the Property Code).

As to who has the superior right to possession, note the rule stated in the Pham case:

A forcible detainer action is a special proceeding designed to be a speedy, simple, and inexpensive means to obtain immediate possession of property. . . . Consistent with this purpose, our courts have repeatedly recognized that a [justice court] judgment of possession in a forcible detainer action is a determination only of the right to immediate possession and does not determine the ultimate rights of the parties to any other issue in controversy relating to the property at issue.

See Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Pham, 449 S.W.3d 230 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.).

Statutory defenses are extremely limited. They include unlawful retaliation by a landlord against a tenant who “in good faith exercises or attempt to exercise against a landlord a right or remedy granted to the tenant by lease, municipal ordinance, or federal or state statute. . . ” Prop. Code Sec. 92.331(a).

Prop. Code Sec. 92.335. [Retaliatory] Eviction Suits

In an eviction suit, retaliation by the landlord under Section 92.331 (Retaliation by Landlord) is a defense and a rent deduction lawfully made by the tenant under this chapter is a defense for nonpayment of the rent. . . .

Other [non-eviction] judicial actions . . . may not be joined with an eviction suit or asserted as a defense or crossclaim. . . .

Except as provided above, there is no defense to the non-payment of rent.

Title-Related Defenses

It is legally inappropriate for a tenant to raise defenses relating to title since justice courts only have jurisdiction over possession. As discussed in more detail below, jurisdiction over title issues resides with district courts and suits relating to title must be commenced and conducted there.

“[M]erely raising the issue of title is not enough to defeat the justice court’s original jurisdiction. The Property Code provides for parallel, separate title and possession suits in the justice court and the county courts at law unless resolution of possession necessarily requires the resolution of a title dispute.” Gonzalez v. Wells Fargo Bank, 441 S.W.3d 709, 713 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2014, no pet.).

Even if a title issue exists (and assuming it is reasonably severable from the right to possession), the justice court may proceed to determine the possession issue. A question as to whether or not there are defects in the chain of title (and therefore the landlord’s ownership) does not deprive a justice court of jurisdiction, since the only issue for adjudication at the justice court level is the superior right to possession. This does not require that the plaintiff landlord prove title, only the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. Isaac v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 563 S.W.3d 305 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied).

There is an interesting case in which the plaintiff claimed that the eviction arose from a wrongful foreclosure that was based on a fraudulent deed of trust. This was determined to be a title issue, so the case belonged in neither justice court nor county court but in district court. “Justice courts do not have jurisdiction to determine or adjudicate title to land, and neither does a county court exercising appellate jurisdiction in a forcible detainer action.” Yarbrough v. Household Finance Corporation III, 455 S.W.3d 277 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.).

Tenant Counterclaims

Counterclaims by the tenant, regardless of subject matter or merit, are not permitted in an eviction case. Tenant suits must be brought separately in any court where venue and jurisdiction allow—including the same justice court where the eviction is pending but under a different case number. Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.3(e).

POSSESSION VERSUS TITLE ISSUES

Possession and Title Issues in the Same Case

On the surface, the law is clear enough. Justice courts have original jurisdiction over possession (Prop. Code Sec. 24.004(a)) but not title; and district courts have original jurisdiction over title (Tex. Const. Art. V, Sec. 8; Gov’t Code Sec. 26.043). Civil procedure rule 510.3(e) states “The [justice] court must adjudicate the right to actual possession and not title.”While justice courts have jurisdiction over cases of forcible detainer, “[a] justice court does not have jurisdiction of . . . a suit for trial of title to land.” Gov. Code Sec. 27.031(b)(4).

“A justice court . . . must adjudicate the right to actual possession of the premises . . . . The justice court may not adjudicate title to the premises. Counterclaims and the joinder of suits against the parties are not permitted in eviction suits. [However,] this subsection does not preclude [such claims] from being brought in a separate suit in a court of proper jurisdiction.” Prop. Code Sec. 24.004 (c).

Inextricable Linkage

The world, however, is not so black and white. Disputes concerning possession and title may arise within the same case. If this occurs, then:

Justice courts may adjudicate possession when issues related to the title of real property are [only] tangentially or collaterally related to possession. If, however, the question of title is so integrally linked to the issue of possession that the right to possession cannot be determined without first determining title, then the justice courts and, on appeal, the county courts, lack jurisdiction over the matter.

See Gibson v. Dynegy Midstream Services, L.P. 138 S.W.3d 518, 522 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.). A Houston appeals court elaborates:

Although a justice court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a forcible detainer action, the justice court, and a county court on appeal, lack jurisdiction to resolve any questions of title beyond the immediate right to possession. . . . On the other hand, a justice court is not deprived of jurisdiction merely by the existence of a title dispute; rather, it is only deprived of jurisdiction if the right to immediate possession necessarily requires the resolution of a title dispute.

See Black v. Washington Mutual Bank, 318 S.W.3d 414 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. dism’d w.o.j.).

The legal standard is whether or not possession and title issues are so inextricably intertwined or integrally linked that the title question must be answered first—or if these issues are instead only tangentially related and therefore severable.

Loss of Justice Court Jurisdiction

A justice court is deprived of jurisdiction only if resolution of a title dispute must occur before a determination of the right to immediate possession can be made. Jelinis, LLC v. Hiran, 557 S.W.3d 159 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied).

The order of resolution [of possession and title issues] is therefore critical. A justice court (or county court on appeal) loses jurisdiction over an eviction case only if the right to immediate possession of the property first requires that title be adjudicated. In re. American Homes for Rent Properties Eight, LLC, 498 S.W.3d 153 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2016, no pet.).

The practical result? Cases with title and possession issues that are inextricably intertwined or integrally linked usually wind up in district court. This places a burden on a tenant who believes for whatever reason that he or she has a title claim, since a different remedy in a different court must now be pursued. Burdensome as this might be, it has been ruled that this is not a denial of due process. Reynoso v. Dibs US, Inc., 541 S.W. 3d 331 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.).

District Court Pre-Emption

Since district courts have original jurisdiction over title matters, the possibility exists (although rare) that a district court may pre-empt the jurisdiction of a justice court. Pre-emption may occur when questions of title and possession are so intertwined that possession may not be determined without first determining title. In such cases, and only in such cases, may the justice court be deprived of jurisdiction by the district court. Bynum v. Lewis, 393 S.W.3d 916 (Tex.App—Tyler 2013, no pet.).

If the concepts of possession and title are legally distinct (reasonably severable), is it then possible to pursue a judgment for possession in justice court while also seeking the declaratory judgment of a district court regarding title? Yes. Moreover, the judgment rendered in the justice court as to possession is not determinative of the outcome of the district court proceeding. AAA Free Move Ministorage, LLC v. OIS Investments, Inc., 419 S.W.3d 522 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied).

District Court Injunctions

What if there is a wrongful foreclosure case pending in district court—can the district court enjoin an eviction taking place in justice court? No. District courts have no jurisdiction to issue an injunction stopping an eviction. McGlothin v. Kliebert, 672 S.W.2d 231, 232 (Tex. 1984); TMC Medical, Ltd. v. The Lasaters French Quarter Partnership, 880 S.W.2d 789 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1994, writ dism’d, w.o.j.).

TRIAL IN THE JUSTICE COURT

Setting a Trial Date

“The court: (1) shall . . . hold the trial of an eviction suit on a date that is not earlier than the 10th day or later than the 21st day after the date the [landlord’s] petition is filed; (2) [the court] may not hold the trial on a date that is earlier than the fourth day after the date the tenant is served with the petition; and (3) [the court] may not postpone the date of a trial for more than seven days unless the parties agree to the postponement in writing.” Prop. Code Sec. 24.0051(g).

Trial may be conducted remotely by video. Prop. Code Sec. 24.005105.

Summary Disposition without Trial

In situations where there is no genuinely disputed fact that would prevent judgment for the landlord, the court may dispose of the case without a trial. “A landlord that files a sworn petition alleging a forcible entry and detainer . . . may include with the petition a sworn motion for summary disposition without trial. . . . If the motion shows that there are no genuinely disputed facts that would prevent a judgment in favor of the landlord, the court may enter judgment in favor of the landlord without a trial unless [the tenant’s response] shows there is a genuinely disputed fact that would prevent a judgment in favor of the landlord and the tenant has filed the response before judgment has been entered.” The court may render judgment without trial even if the tenant has answered the suit. Prop. Code Sec. 24.005106.

WRIT OF POSSESSION

If the Landlord Prevails

If the landlord prevails and the tenant does not appeal from justice to county court within five days, the judgment of the justice court becomes final and the landlord may obtain a writ of possession. This requires going to the county clerk’s office and paying a nominal fee.

Executing the Writ

The local constable or sheriff executes the writ but first posts a notice on the tenant’s door allowing 48 hours to move out. After that, the officers may show up with a truck, evict the tenant, and put the tenant’s possessions in storage where charges accrue at the tenant’s expense.

Prop. Code Sec. 24.0061(a) et seq. Writ of Possession

A landlord who prevails in an eviction suit is entitled to a judgment for possession of the premises and a writ of possession. . . . A writ of possession may not be issued before the sixth day after the date on which the judgment for possession is rendered unless a possession bond has been filed and approved under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and judgment for possession is thereafter granted by default. . . .

The court shall notify a tenant in writing of a default judgment for possession by sending a copy of the judgment to the premises by first class mail not later than 48 hours after the entry of the judgment. . . . A sheriff or constable may use reasonable force in executing a writ [of possession].

Storage of Tenant Property

Instead of placing the tenant’s possessions at the curb, the sheriff may elect to put them into storage and give the tenant notice of their location:

Prop. Code Sec. 24.0062. Warehouseman’s Lien

(b) If [a tenant’s] property is to be removed and stored in a public warehouse under a writ of possession, the officer executing the writ shall, at the time of execution, deliver in person to the tenant, or by first class mail to the tenant’s last known address not later than 72 hours after execution of the writ if the tenant is not present, a written notice stating the complete address and telephone number of the location at which the property may be redeemed. . . .

The storage company has a lien on the tenant’s possessions (a warehouseman’s lien) for reasonable storage and moving charges incurred (Prop. Code Sec. 24.0062(a)).

APPEALS FROM JUSTICE COURT

Appeal to County Court

Motions for new trial are not allowed in justice court eviction cases. However, within five calendar days of judgment, the losing party may (with or without good reason) appeal the justice court’s judgment to the local county court at law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.9 and Prop. Code Sec. 24.005107.

The appeal results in the file being sent to the county courthouse where it will be heard de novo (as a completely new case). This process arises from an interesting historical quirk: the justice court is not a court of record in Texas. No transcript is kept of the proceedings or testimony so the appeal to county court automatically vacates and annuls the justice court judgment and everything starts over at the county court level. The Property Code states:

Prop. Code Sec. 24.005107. Appeal to County Court [in Eviction Cases]

(a) A party may appeal the judgment of a justice court in an eviction suit by filing a bond, cash deposit, or statement of inability to afford payment of court costs with the justice court not later than the fifth day after the date the judgment is signed.

A tenant who files an appeal must affirm, under penalty of perjury, the tenant’s good faith belief that the tenant has a meritorious defense and that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay.

An appeal is perfected when a bond, cash deposit, or statement of inability to afford payment of court costs is timely filed with the justice court in accordance with this section.

(b) The justice court shall forward the transcript and original papers in an appeal of an eviction case to the county court, by electronic means or otherwise, not earlier than 4 p.m. on the sixth day or later than 4 p.m. on the 10th day after the date the tenant files the appeal, except that, if the court confirms that the tenant has timely paid the initial rent payment into the justice court registry in accordance with Section 24.0053, the court may forward the transcript and original papers immediately.

(c) The county court shall hold a trial not later than the 21st day after the date the transcript and original papers are delivered to the county court.

Appeal Bonds and Pauper’s Affidavits

“In a residential eviction suit, the justice court shall state in the court’s judgment the amount of the appeal bond, taking into consideration the money [for rental payments] required to be paid into the court registry under Section 24.0053.” Prop. Code Sec. 24.00511. Either party may then contest the bond amount within five days.

Cash bond may be waived if the tenant files an affidavit stating that he or she cannot afford it. The content of the pauper’s bond or pauper’s affidavit is prescribed by statute (Prop. Code Sec. 24.0052) and is more complicated than it used to be.

Once a pauper’s affidavit is filed, the landlord has the right to request a hearing and contest the affidavit by alleging that the tenant does in fact have sufficient resources for the bond. The tenant can be questioned on the subject of personal assets and income. It is generally pointless to go through this exercise, however, since pauper’s bonds are almost always approved by justices of the peace. The file is then turned over to the county court to be heard as a new case. Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.9(c).

If a pauper’s bond is approved, and the county court takes over the case, the tenant is then obliged to begin making monthly rental payments to the court and continue to do so during the pendency of the appeal. If the tenant fails to do this (and most do) the landlord may file a motion seeking immediate possession

One-Month’s Rental Deposit on Appeal

Not later than the fifth day after the date the tenant files an appeal of a rent non-payment case, the tenant must pay an initial deposit of rent into the court’s registry for one rental period (usually a month):

Prop Code Sec. 24.0053(a-2)(1). [Initial Rent Deposit on Appeal. If a tenant files an appeal of a justice court judgment in an eviction suit], the tenant shall not later than the fifth day after the date the tenant files the appeal, pay rent for one rental pay period into the justice court registry [as a condition of perfecting the appeal.]

Failure by a Tenant to deposit of one months’ rent gives landlords an effective pre-appeal means of obtaining a writ of possession while the file still resides at the justice court level, before the file is transferred to the county clerk’s office and set up as a new case. A tenant who cannot post a month’s rent within five days of judgment therefore automatically loses. Sanchez v. Retreat at Mesa Hills, 657 S.W.3d 64 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2022, no pet.).

Rent Obligations During Appeal

The tenant must then continue to pay rent into the court registry during the pendency of the appeal:

Prop Code Sec. 24.0053(a-2)(2). [Rent Obligation while Appeal is Pending]. [If a tenant files an appeal of a justice court judgment in an eviction suit], the tenant shall on or before the beginning of each rental pay period during the pendency of the appeal, pay rent for one rental pay period into the justice court or county court registry, as applicable. . . .

Failure to Pay Appeal Rent

This issue is governed by Property Code Section 24.0054. In a rental non-payment case, if the tenant fails to pay either the initial rent deposit or ongoing rental payments into the court registry as they fall due then a summary remedy is available:

Prop. Code Sec. 24.0054(a-2). [Failure to Pay Initial Rent Deposit on Appeal]. If the tenant has not timely paid the initial deposit [of one month’s rent into the registry as required by Section 24.0053], the justice court on request shall issue a writ of possession [in favor of the landlord.]

Failure to pay ongoing rent as it falls due invokes a slightly different remedy:

Prop. Code Sec. 24.0054(a-4). [Rent During Appeal]. During the appeal of an eviction case for nonpayment of rent, if a tenant fails to pay rent into the justice court or county court registry as the rent becomes due . . . the landlord may file . . . a sworn motion. . . [and the landlord shall] notify the tenant of the . . . hearing date.

Prop. Code Sec. 24.0054(b). [Non-Payment of Rent]. If the county court finds that the tenant has not complied with [ongoing rental] payment requirements . . . the county court shall immediately issue a writ of possession unless [the tenant pays the back rent plus the landlord’s attorney’s reasonable fees] on or before the day of the hearing. . . .

Prop. Code Sec. 24.0054(c)(1) and (2). [A repeat non-paying tenant] is not entitled to stay the issuance of a writ of possession by paying the [back rent and attorney’s fees, and] the county court shall immediately issue a writ of possession [which] may not be executed before the sixth day after the date the writ is issued.

During the appeal, either party may revisit the amount of the rent by filing a motion to reconsider with the court. Prop Code Sec. 24.0053(d).

Jurisdictional Scope of Appeal

Note that although a justice court’s judgment may be appealed to county court, a “county court has no greater jurisdiction than the justice court had.” Tellez v. Rodriguez, 612 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.).

Courts above the justice court level are not in any way bound by what happened in justice court. “A judgment or a determination of fact or law in a proceeding in a lower trial court is not res judicata and is not a basis for estoppel by judgment in a proceeding in a district court” (Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 31.004(a)).

Appeals from County to District Court

There is also the possibility of a second appeal from county court to district court:

Prop. Code Sec. 24.007. Appeal [from County Court Judgment]

A final judgment of a county court in an eviction suit may not be appealed on the issue of possession unless the premises in question are being used for residential purposes only. A judgment of a county court may not under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court. In setting the supersedeas bond the county court shall provide protection for the appellee to the same extent as in any other appeal, taking into consideration the value of rents likely to accrue during appeal, damages which may occur as a result of the stay during appeal, and other damages or amounts as the court may deem appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Eviction Process Summarized

In a typical eviction, a landlord must give a three-day notice to vacate, file an eviction petition in justice court, get it served, have it heard in court by a justice of the peace, and then wait five days for a final judgment and a writ of possession. The landlord must then wait until the constable posts a 48-hour notice on the door and then removes the tenant who is otherwise unwilling to leave. Elapsed time? Often three to four weeks but that assumes there is no appeal. If the tenant appeals, it is possible that the tenant will gain additional time in the property.

Judgments Against Individual Tenants

Obtaining a judgment for monetary damages against an individual residential tenant can be an empty formality since such judgments are seldom collected. Texas has long been a safe haven for debtors, and both the Texas Constitution and the Property Code exempt a long list of real and personal property from execution upon a judgment. The average residential tenant has very little that a landlord will be allowed to take and, since garnishment of wages is unconstitutional, collection may be problematic.

Often the best strategy is to record an abstract of judgment against the tenant in the real property records in the hopes that in the next ten years the tenant will become affluent enough to own and sell property. If such a transaction occurs through a title company, the title company should collect and escrow funds to pay the judgement.

What does the attorney need from the client?

In court, the attorney will be tasked with establishing the superior right to possession, so he must be given the tools required to do that. A landlord client should be prepared to supply:

(1) a copy of the lease agreement and any modifications;

(2) a summary of specific allegations of monetary and technical default;

(3) copies of relevant correspondence including emails and texts;

(4) copies of written notices or demands given to the tenant;

(5) copies of relevant exhibits (e.g., canceled or NSF checks) if any; and

(6) although not strictly required, a certified copy of the landlord’s deed may come in handy if ownership is disputed.