Kevin Bode and Marilyn Brown v. Federal National Mortgage Assn ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed November 17, 2015.
    Court of Appeals
    S     In The
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-14-01086-CV
    KEVIN BODE AND MARILYN BROWN, Appellants
    V.
    FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee
    On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6
    Collin County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 006-00825-2014
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Lang-Miers, Brown, and Schenck
    Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers
    This is an appeal in a forcible detainer action concerning a residential property located in
    Collin County, Texas. On appeal appellants 1 argue that appellee Federal National Mortgage
    Association (Fannie Mae) lacked the capacity to sue. We resolve appellants’ issue against them
    and affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    The facts in this case are undisputed. Appellants bought the residence at issue in 2003.
    In 2010 it was foreclosed upon and sold at a trustee sale, presumably to Fannie Mae. 2 Appellants
    1
    Appellant Kevin Bode died after the notice of appeal was filed in this case. His counsel filed a suggestion of death. Bode’s death does not
    affect the disposition of this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 7.1(a) (“If a party to a civil case dies after the trial court renders judgment but before the
    case has been finally disposed of on appeal, the appeal may be perfected, and the appellate court will proceed to adjudicate the appeal as if all
    parties were alive. The appellate court’s judgment will have the same force and effect as if rendered when all parties were living. The decedent
    party’s name may be used on all papers.”); see also Kallam v. Boyd, 
    232 S.W.3d 774
    , 775 n.4 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (death of plaintiff during
    pendency of appeal did not affect continuation of appeal).
    2
    The foreclosure documents are not in the appellate record.
    continued to live in the residence after the foreclosure. In January 2013, appellants and Fannie
    Mae entered into a one-year lease agreement. In January 2014, appellants received a letter from
    Fannie Mae’s property manager informing appellants that “the Subject Property will no longer
    be available as a rental” and advising appellants that they were required to vacate and deliver
    possession of the property within 30 days. After appellants refused to vacate the property,
    Fannie Mae filed a forcible detainer action in the justice court. The justice court awarded
    possession to Fannie Mae. Appellants appealed to the county court at law and alleged that
    Fannie Mae lacked the capacity to sue. The county court at law held a nonjury trial. During that
    trial, appellants introduced into evidence a “Certificate of Fact” issued by the Texas Secretary of
    State indicating that Fannie Mae is not registered to do business in the State of Texas. At the
    conclusion of the trial, the county court at law awarded possession to Fannie Mae.
    ANALYSIS
    On appeal appellants argue that the trial court erred in rendering judgment in favor of
    Fannie Mae contending that Fannie Mae lacked the capacity to sue in Texas because it is not
    registered to do business in Texas. To support their argument appellants rely on section 9.051(b)
    of the Texas Business Organizations Code, which states,
    A foreign filing entity or the entity’s legal representative may not maintain an
    action, suit, or proceeding in a court of this state, . . . on a cause of action that
    arises out of the transaction of business in this state unless the foreign filing entity
    is registered in accordance with this chapter. . . .
    TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE ANN. § 9.051(b) (West 2012). In response, Fannie Mae argues, in part,
    that federal law exempts Fannie Mae from any state business registration requirements. We
    agree with Fannie Mae.
    The United States Congress vested Fannie Mae with the authority “to sue and be sued,
    and to complain and to defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal,” and “to
    conduct its business without regard to any qualification or similar statute of any State of the
    –2–
    United States.” 12 U.S.C. § 1723a(a). As a result, we conclude that Fannie Mae did not lack the
    capacity to initiate a forcible detainer proceeding against appellants.
    CONCLUSION
    We resolve appellants’ sole issue against them and affirm.
    /Elizabeth Lang-Miers/
    ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
    JUSTICE
    141086F.P05
    –3–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    KEVIN BODE AND MARILYN BROWN,                        On Appeal from the County Court at Law
    Appellant                                            No. 6, Collin County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 006-00825-2014.
    No. 05-14-01086-CV         V.                        Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers.
    Justices Brown and Schenck participating.
    FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
    ASSOCIATION, Appellee
    In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
    AFFIRMED.
    It is ORDERED that appellee Federal National Mortgage Association recover its costs of
    this appeal from appellant Kevin Bode and Marilyn Brown.
    Judgment entered this 17th day of November, 2015.
    –4–
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-14-01086-CV

Filed Date: 11/17/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/28/2016