Ricardo Vaiz v. Federal National Mortgage Association ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              NUMBER 13-14-00110-CV
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
    RICARDO VAIZ,                                                                 Appellant,
    v.
    FEDERAL NATIONAL
    MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,                                                         Appellee.
    On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
    of Cameron County, Texas.
    ORDER OF ABATEMENT
    Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza and Longoria
    Order Per Curiam
    On June 6, 2013, appellee Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”)
    filed a forcible-detainer petition against Ricardo Vaiz and all occupants in a justice of the
    peace court in Cameron County Texas. Fannie Mae sought to evict Vaiz from certain
    property located at “22329 FM 2556, La Feria, T[exas] 78559 a/k/a West Cantu Road,
    Santa Rosa, T[exas] 78593.” The justice court entered judgment awarding possession
    to Fannie Mae. Vaiz appealed to County Court at Law Number 2 of Cameron County,
    which entered judgment awarding possession to Fannie Mae. This appeal followed.
    This case is before this Court on the briefs. Jurisdiction of forcible detainer actions
    is expressly given to the justice court of the precinct where the property is located and,
    on appeal, to county courts for a trial de novo. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.004(a)
    (West, Westlaw through Chapter 46 2015 R.S.); Gonzalez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 
    441 S.W.3d 709
    , 712 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014, no pet.); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.3(b)
    (“[A forcible detainer action] must be filed in the precinct where the premises is located.
    If it is filed elsewhere, the judge must dismiss the case.”). In a forcible detainer action,
    the appellate jurisdiction of a county court-at-law is confined to the jurisdictional limits of
    the justice court, so that the county court has no jurisdiction over an appeal unless the
    justice court had jurisdiction. Aguilar v. Weber, 
    72 S.W.3d 729
    , 731 (Tex. App.—Waco
    2002, no pet.).
    The body of Fannie Mae’s original petition states that the subject property is
    located in “Justice of the Peace Precinct 7 in Cameron County, Texas.” However, the
    style of the petition states “Precinct 5, Position 3” in Cameron County. Similarly, the
    judgment of the justice court states that the property is located in “Precinct 7, Place 1,”
    but the style reflects “Precinct 5 Position 3.”
    In county court, Fannie Mae filed a motion for summary judgment asserting its right
    to possession of the property. In his response to Fannie Mae’s motion, Vaiz asserted
    that “the court designation is precinct 5, position 3 and in the body of the judgment it
    states precinct 7, place 1.” Vaiz further noted that a forcible detainer action must be
    dismissed if brought in the wrong precinct. The county court’s judgment awarding Fannie
    Mae possession of the property states that “[t]his is an appeal from a judgment entered
    2
    in an eviction proceeding in the Justice Court, either Precinct 5, Position 3 or Precinct 7,
    Place 1, Cameron County Texas . . . .”
    The resolution of the jurisdictional issues presented in this appeal depends on
    whether the property is located within “Precinct 7 Place 1” or within “Precinct 5 Place 3,”
    the justice court in which Fannie Mae’s petition was filed. The record before this Court
    fails to contain any evidence showing:      (1) the specific geographical delineation of
    Precinct 5, Place 3; and (2) a certified legible map showing the location of Vaiz’s property
    in relation to the geographical boundaries of Precinct 5, Place 3. Accordingly, we ABATE
    and REMAND this appeal for the proceedings specified herein.
    Upon remand, the judge of the county court shall immediately cause notice to be
    given and conduct a hearing regarding supplementation of the appellate record with the
    aforementioned information. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c). The county court shall include
    this information together with any orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned
    issues, to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record. The county court shall cause a
    supplemental reporter’s record of any proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental
    clerk’s record and supplemental reporter’s record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of
    this Court on or before the expiration of forty-five days from the date of this order. This
    appeal will be reinstated upon receipt of the foregoing materials and upon further order
    of this Court.
    It is so ORDERED.
    PER CURIAM
    Delivered and filed the
    22nd day of June, 2015.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-14-00110-CV

Filed Date: 6/25/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/25/2015