robert-m-markham-and-all-other-occupants-v-deutsche-bank-national-trust ( 2011 )

NUMBER 13-09-00633-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI—EDINBURG
ROBERT M. MARKHAM AND
ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellants,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, IN TRUST FOR
THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF ARGENT
SECURITIES INC., ASSET-BACKED
PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-W5, Appellee.
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
of Hidalgo County, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Vela, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes
Appellant, Robert M. Markham,1 appeals the trial court’s summary judgment
granting a forcible detainer in favor of appellee, Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company, as Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Argent Securities Inc.,
Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W5 (hereinafter ―Deutsche
Bank‖). Because the justice court and county court at law lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and dismiss this case for lack of
jurisdiction.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Deutsche Bank filed a forcible-detainer petition against Markham in the Court of
the Justice of the Peace, Precinct Three, Place Two, of Hidalgo County, Texas, seeking
to evict Markham from the property located at 307 Highland Drive, McAllen, Texas
78501 (―the property‖). After a jury trial, the justice court entered judgment on the jury’s
verdict in favor of Deutsche Bank. Markham appealed de novo to the county court at
law, which granted a summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank. Markham
thereafter filed a motion to set aside the county court’s judgment and to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction, arguing that the justice court lacked jurisdiction over the case because
the property is not located within the geographical boundaries of Justice of the Peace
Precinct Three of Hidalgo County, Texas. Markham argued that because the justice
court lacked jurisdiction, the county court lacked jurisdiction. The county court denied
Markham’s motion and this appeal followed.2
1
Robert M. Markham and All Other Occupants were named as defendants in the lawsuit and are
appellants on appeal. Hereinafter, we collectively refer to appellants as ―Markham.‖
2
Counsel for Deutsche Bank informed this Court that Deutsche Bank elected not to file a brief in
this appeal. On appeal, Markham has filed two motions asking this Court to set aside the trial court’s
judgment for lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss this appeal. The motions were carried with this case and
are hereby denied as moot in light of this opinion.
2
II. ISSUES PRESENTED
Markham presents two issues for review:
(1) Did the justice court lack jurisdiction to award Deutsche Bank relief in its
forcible-detainer action when the property at issue was not located within the
precinct of the justice court?
(2) Did the justice court’s lack of jurisdiction deprive the county court of jurisdiction
when the justice court’s judgment was appealed de novo to the county court?
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
Subject matter jurisdiction is an issue of law which we review de novo. Singleton
v. Casteel, 267 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied).
Subject matter jurisdiction is never presumed and cannot be waived. Ward v. Malone,
115 S.W.3d 267, 269 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, pet. denied). Jurisdiction over
forcible-detainer actions is expressly given to the justice court of the precinct where the
property is located and, on appeal, to the county court for a trial de novo. See TEX.
PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.004 (West 2000); Ward, 115 S.W.3d at 269; Goggins v. Leo, 849
S.W.2d 373, 375 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ); Tanner v. Axelrad,
680 S.W.2d 851, 852 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ dism’d). The appellate
jurisdiction of a statutory county court is confined to the jurisdictional limits of the justice
court, and the county court has no jurisdiction over an appeal unless the justice court
had jurisdiction. Ward, 115 S.W.3d at 269; Goggins, 849 S.W.2d at 375.
Deutsche Bank neither alleged nor proved that the property is located within the
geographical boundaries of Justice of the Peace Precinct Three of Hidalgo County,
Texas. Markham’s motion to set aside the county court’s judgment and to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction includes a copy of a Hidalgo County road map and a precinct map.
3
Markham’s exhibit, however, is not authenticated and does not clearly show the relevant
Hidalgo County precinct boundaries.
An appellate court may take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact sua sponte.
See TEX. R. EVID. 201(f); In re Baylor Medical Center at Garland, 280 S.W.3d 227, 229
n.6 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (taking judicial notice sua sponte that trial judge had
been replaced by election during pendency of mandamus case); Martinez v. City of San
Antonio, 768 S.W.2d 911, 914 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1989, no writ) (discussing
appellate court’s discretion to take judicial notice under Rule 201(f) and taking judicial
notice on party’s request to avoid unjust judgment); see also O’Quinn v. Hall, 77 S.W.3d
438, 477 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.) (discussing nature of ―adjudicative
facts‖). The judicially noticed fact must not be subject to reasonable dispute in that it is
either: (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, or (2)
capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy
cannot be reasonably questioned. TEX. R. EVID. 201(b). It is particularly appropriate for
an appellate court to take judicial notice of a fact that pertains to a question of subject-
matter jurisdiction, rather than the merits of a dispute. See City of Glenn Heights v.
Sheffield Dev. Co., Inc., 55 S.W.3d 158, 162–63 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied).
We hereby take judicial notice that the subject property is not located within
Justice of the Peace Precinct Three of Hidalgo County, Texas. See Harper v. Killion,
162 Tex. 481, 485, 348 S.W.2d 521, 523 (1961) (holding intermediate appellate court
could take judicial notice that entire city of Jacksonville was located in Cherokee
County, Texas); City of Dallas v. Moreau, 718 S.W.2d 776, 781 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (concluding appellate court could take judicial notice of city
charter on appeal when city charter showed trial court lacked authority to submit
4
wrongful-termination appeal to a jury). The location of the property is capable of
accurate and ready determination from a certified Justice of the Peace Precincts Map of
Hidalgo County, Texas.3 The property is located within Justice of the Peace Precinct
Two of Hidalgo County, Texas. As a result, the precinct-three justice court and the
county court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. See Goggins, 849
S.W.2d at 375–76; Tanner, 680 S.W.2d at 852–53. Accordingly, we sustain both of
Markham’s issues on appeal.
IV. CONCLUSION
We reverse the trial court’s judgment and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
_______________________________
GREGORY T. PERKES
Justice
Delivered and filed the
14th day of July, 2011.
3
On June 9, 2011, this Court issued an order abating and remanding this case to the trial court
for supplementation of the appellate record with (1) the specific geographical delineation of the relevant
precinct boundaries, and (2) a legible map showing the precinct boundaries with the streets contained in
those precincts. On June 14, 2011, a certified map of Hidalgo County Justice of the Peace Precincts
Two and Three was filed in this cause. The map bears an official seal and the stamp of the Hidalgo
County Elections Administrator, Yvonne Ramon. It is certified to be a true and correct copy of the original
on file and on record in the Elections Administrator’s office. We hereby order this appeal reinstated.
5