Paula Moore & All Occupants v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank ( 2015 )

AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed January 15, 2015.
Court of Appeals
S In The
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-01337-CV
TINA MILES, Appellant
V.
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-05404-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers
Opinion by Justice Myers
Tina Miles appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding possession of real property to J.P.
Morgan Chase Bank in this forcible detainer suit. Miles contends the trial court erred by not
awarding her possession of the house under the federal Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act
(PTFA). 1 We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
BACKGROUND
On August 7, 2012, J.P. Morgan purchased the property at issue in this case at a
foreclosure auction. On April 25, 2013, J.P. Morgan sent a letter to the occupants of the property
demanding they vacate the property. When Miles did not vacate, J.P. Morgan brought suit for
1
Pub. L. No. 111–22, §§ 701, 702, 123 Stat. 1632, 1660–61 (2009); 12 U.S.C. § 5220 note.
forcible detainer in justice court. The justice court awarded J.P. Morgan possession of the
property. Miles appealed to the county court at law.
At the trial in the county court at law, J.P. Morgan presented evidence of the deed of
trust, the foreclosure of the property, J.P. Morgan’s purchase of the property at the foreclosure
auction, and the notice to vacate. Miles testified she had a lease with Roy Mitchell for ten years
at $500 per month or until she could obtain financing to purchase the property. She also testified
she stopped paying rent at Mitchell’s suggestion when the foreclosure process started. She
testified she had not paid any rent for over a year. Miles did not offer the written lease into
evidence, and the lease was not made part of the record. The trial court stated at the hearing,
“I’m not going to find that a 10-year lease is a bona fide lease . . . .” At the conclusion of the
hearing, the trial court awarded possession of the property to J.P. Morgan. Miles did not request
that the trial court make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
FORCIBLE DETAINER
A forcible detainer action is a procedure to determine the right to immediate possession
of real property where there was no unlawful entry. Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705, 709 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.). It is intended to be a speedy, simple, and inexpensive means to
obtain possession without resort to an action on the title. Scott v. Hewitt, 90 S.W.2d 816, 818–19
(Tex. 1936); Rice, 51 S.W.3d at 709. To maintain simplicity, the applicable rule of procedure
provides that “the only issue shall be as to the right to actual possession; and the merits of the
title shall not be adjudicated.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 746. Accordingly, the only issue in a forcible
detainer action is which party has the right to immediate possession of the property. Rice, 51
S.W.3d at 709. Whether a sale of property under a deed of trust is invalid may not be determined
in a forcible detainer action but must be brought in a separate suit. Scott, 90 S.W.2d at 818; Rice,
51 S.W.3d at 710 (quoting Scott).
–2–
Miles argues that under the PTFA, she was entitled to keep possession of the property
through the end of the term of her lease. The PTFA provides two different types of protection to
“bona fide tenants” of residential property after a foreclosure sale. First, “the successor in
interest in such property pursuant to the foreclosure” must provide a bona fide tenant ninety
days’ notice before requiring the tenant to vacate. See Pub. L. No. 111-22, § 702(a)(1), (2), 123
Stat. 1632, 1661; 12 U.S.C. § 5220 note. Second, if a “bona fide lease” was entered into before
the notice of foreclosure, then the lease is not terminated, and the successor in interest takes the
property subject to the tenant’s rights under the lease to occupy the premises until the end of the
remaining term of the lease. § 702(a)(2)(A), 123 Stat. at 1661. The only exception is if the
successor in interest sells the property to a purchaser who will occupy the premises as his
primary residence. In that situation, the successor in interest may terminate the lease on the day
of the sale but must still provide the tenant ninety days’ notice to vacate. § 702(a)(2)(A), 123
Stat. at 1661.
Oral statements by the trial court do not constitute findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the court of appeals may not look to the trial court’s oral comments as being a substitute
for findings of fact and conclusions of law. In re W.E.R., 669 S.W.2d 716, 716 (Tex. 1984) (per
curiam). When a trial court makes no separate findings of fact or conclusions of law, we must
draw every reasonable inference supported by the record in favor of the trial court’s judgment.
See Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam); Hollingsworth v.
Hollingsworth, 274 S.W.3d 811, 815 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.). We imply all findings
of fact necessary to support the judgment that are supported by the evidence. BMC Software
Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 795 (Tex. 2002). “[T]he judgment of the trial court
must be affirmed if it can be upheld on any legal theory that finds support in the evidence.”
Lassiter v. Bliss, 559 S.W.2d 353, 358 (Tex. 1977), overruled on other grounds, Cherne Indus.,
–3–
Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. 1989); Hollingsworth, 274 S.W.3d at 815.
Nonetheless, in cases in which the appellate record includes the reporter’s record, the trial court’s
implied fact findings are not conclusive and may be challenged for legal and factual sufficiency
of the evidence supporting them. Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 103 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied).
In evaluating the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding, we must
determine whether the evidence as a whole rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-
minded people to differ in their conclusions. OAIC Commercial Assets, L.L.C. v. Stonegate Vill.,
L.P., 234 S.W.3d 726, 736 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied). We view the evidence in the
light favorable to the finding, crediting favorable evidence if a reasonable fact-finder could and
disregarding contrary evidence unless a reasonable fact-finder could not. City of Keller v.
Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005). To evaluate the factual sufficiency of the evidence to
support a finding, we consider all the evidence and set aside the finding only if the evidence
supporting it is so weak or so against the overwhelming weight of the evidence that the finding is
clearly wrong and unjust. See Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam);
Young v. Young, 168 S.W.3d 276, 281 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.). We review implied
legal conclusions de novo. Bob Montgomery Chevrolet, Inc. v. Dent Zone Cos., 409 S.W.3d 181,
187 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.); Turner v. Mullins, 162 S.W.3d 356, 364 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). In a bench trial, it is for the court, as the trier of fact, to judge the
credibility of the witnesses, assign the weight to be given their testimony, and to resolve any
conflicts or inconsistencies in the testimony. Young, 168 S.W.3d at 281.
Miles argues the trial court erred by stating she was not a bona fide tenant because of the
length of the lease. The PTFA describes the term “bona fide lease or tenancy” as follows:
For purposes of this section, a lease or tenancy shall be considered bona fide only
if—
–4–
(1) the mortgagor or the child, spouse, or parent of the mortgagor under the
contract is not the tenant;
(2) the lease or tenancy was the result of an arms-length transaction; and
(3) the lease or tenancy requires the receipt of rent that is not substantially less
than fair market rent for the property or the unit’s rent is reduced or subsidized
due to a Federal, State, or local subsidy.
Pub. L. 111-22, § 702(b), 123 Stat. at 1661. The PTFA does not state that the length of a lease is
a factor for determining whether a lease is a bona fide lease or tenancy under the PTFA.
However, the trial court’s statement at trial about the lease not being a bona fide lease because of
its ten-year term cannot substitute for written findings of fact and conclusions of law. In re
W.E.R., 669 S.W.2d at 716. Because Miles did not request and the trial court did not make
findings of fact and conclusions of law, we must uphold the trial court’s judgment on any legal
theory supported by the evidence. Worford, 801 S.W.2d at 109.
In this case, the only evidence of Miles’s lease is her testimony about the lease. The
written lease itself was not offered or admitted into evidence. Miles testified she had been
paying rent of $500 per month until Mitchell told her to stop paying rent. After that, she paid no
rent for over a year. From this evidence, the trial court could conclude the lease was not a bona
fide lease or tenancy under the PTFA because Mitchell had not been requiring the payment of
rent. Therefore, Miles’s tenancy was for rent that was substantially less than fair market rent for
the property. See Pub. L. 111-22, § 702(b)(3), 123 Stat at 1661. We conclude the evidence is
sufficient to support the trial court’s implied finding that Miles’s lease was not a bona fide lease
or tenancy. Miles has not shown the trial court erred by determining that J.P. Morgan was
entitled to immediate possession of the property. We overrule Miles’s issue on appeal.
–5–
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Lana Myers/
LANA MYERS
131337F.P05 JUSTICE
–6–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
Tina Miles, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law
No. 5, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-13-01337-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-05404-E.
Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Appellee Bridges and Lang-Miers participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee J.P. Morgan Chase Bank recover its costs of this appeal
from appellant Tina Miles.
Judgment entered this 15th day of January, 2015.
–7–