Jeremy Rollins v. Roderick Bonds ( 2024 )

Affirmed and Opinion Filed July 5, 2024
S In the
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-00440-CV
JEREMY ROLLINS, Appellant
V.
RODERICK BONDS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-01679-D
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Carlyle
Opinion by Justice Carlyle
This appeal arises from a forcible entry and detainer action Bonds
successfully brought against Rollins seeking possession of a family home. The sole
question presented in a forcible entry and detainer suit is the right to immediate
possession of the property; title is not at issue. See Lugo v. Ross, 378 S.W.3d 620,
622 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.). We affirm in this memorandum opinion.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
Rollins claims Bonds has no legal right to the property, which we construe
as a sufficiency challenge. See City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827–28
(Tex. 2005) (describing legal and factual sufficiency standards). Bonds presented
evidence supporting his claim to possession, including a General Warranty Deed
from his mother deeding him the property, Dallas County Appraisal District
Records listing him as the owner, and evidence of a homeowner’s policy for the
property in his name.
Rollins, Bonds’s nephew, presented evidence and argument focused on title
issues, which the court repeatedly and correctly instructed him were not properly
the subject of a forcible entry and detainer action. See Lugo, 378 S.W.3d at 622.
Rollins offered a dismissal order and trial-setting order from a prior case between
he and Bonds dealing with this property. The court dismissed that case for
improper service. Rollins also offered Bonds’s mother’s Last Will and Testament
and notarized letters from the two witnesses to the will, both claiming they did not
understand what they were signing and claiming the dates on the will are
inaccurate. Rollins additionally offered the same general warranty deed Bonds
offered, along with the district clerk’s certification of filing and recording.
Bonds’s evidence showed sufficient evidence of ownership to demonstrate a
superior right to immediate possession, the sole issue in the suit. See Lugo, 378
S.W.3d at 622. Nothing Rollins presented undercuts that evidence and nothing
indicates that title is so intertwined with possession that a court had to determine
title as a prerequisite to determining the right to immediate possession, depriving
the justice and county courts of jurisdiction. See Guillen v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 494
–2–
S.W.3d 861, 866 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.). We affirm the
judgment of the trial court in this forcible entry and detainer action.
/Cory L. Carlyle/
CORY L. CARLYLE
230440F.P05 JUSTICE
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JEREMY ROLLINS, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at
Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-23-00440-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-01679-
D.
RODERICK BONDS, Appellee Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle.
Justices Partida-Kipness and
Pedersen, III participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee RODERICK BONDS recover his costs of this
appeal from appellant JEREMY ROLLINS.
Judgment entered July 5, 2024.
–4–