Leola Stuart v. Estelita Judson ( 2015 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00380-CV
Leola STUART,
Appellant
v.
/s
Estelita JUDSON,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 391869
Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding 1
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 6, 2015
AFFIRMED
Leola Stuart, proceeding pro se, appeals the judgment against her in this forcible entry and
detainer action. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. §§ 24.001-.011 (West 2014). We overrule Stuart’s
issues on appeal and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
1
The Honorable Jason Wolff is the presiding judge of County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas. The
Honorable Tina Torres, former presiding judge of County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas, presided over
the trial and signed the judgment.
04-14-00380-CV
BACKGROUND
Stuart moved in to Section 8 subsidized housing at an apartment complex managed by
Estelita Judson in August 2013. In January 2014, Judson sued to evict Stuart from the apartment
based on her failure to pay the un-subsidized portion of the rent, $298 per month. See TEX. PROP.
CODE ANN. § 24.0051; see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.3. The justice of the peace court rendered
judgment in favor of Judson for possession of the property; no money was awarded to Judson.
Stuart appealed to the county court at law, which held a trial de novo in March 2014. See TEX. R.
CIV. P. 510.9-.10. The county court ruled in favor of Judson, and ordered Stuart to surrender
possession of the property by March 31, 2014. The court also awarded the rent monies that Stuart
had paid into the registry of the court to Judson. Stuart now appeals.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Stuart raises four issues, all of which are based on unspecified “substantial
evidence” that Stuart asserts the court prohibited her from presenting or which the court failed to
properly consider at the trial de novo, thereby denying her due process. The only issue in an
eviction suit is the right to actual possession. TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.3(e); OIS Invs., Inc. v. AAA Free
Move Ministorage, LLC, No. 04-12-00775-CV, 2013 WL 5508407, at *2 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio Oct. 2, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.). In addition to the discussion about nonpayment of
rent, our review of the record shows that the court permitted Stuart to discuss in depth all of the
problems with the rental property that Stuart raises in her brief, i.e., mail tampering, unsafe and/or
non-working electricity, and harassment by other tenants and/or workers. Stuart was further
allowed to argue that the eviction petition was brought in retaliation for her repeated complaints
to the San Antonio Police Department and Fire Department, and local, state, and federal housing
departments about the conditions at the apartment complex. There is nothing in the record to
support Stuart’s claims that the court curtailed her presentation of evidence or failed to consider
-2-
04-14-00380-CV
any part of Stuart’s evidence. Indeed, the record reflects that Stuart showed the court several
photographs of the electrical unit and mail box at the apartment complex. Stuart does not identify
any other “substantial evidence” that she was precluded from presenting or that the court failed to
consider. Accordingly, we overrule Stuart’s issues on appeal.
Based on the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
-3-