Patten Custom Homes, LLC v. Robert Mahlin, Anne Mahlin, and Samanum Ngernerd

No. 05-16-01017-CV · Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District at Dallas · July 18, 2017 · No. No. 05-16-01017-CV

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Texas reversed a take-nothing judgment in a forcible-detainer action brought by Patten Custom Homes, LLC. The court held that the foreclosure documents, subsequent deed, and notices to vacate conclusively established PCH’s right to immediate possession, while challenges to the foreclosure’s validity could not be resolved in a forcible-detainer proceeding. The court rendered judgment awarding possession and reasonable attorney’s fees to PCH and remanded for determination of the fee amount.

Holdings

  1. PCH conclusively established its right to immediate possession because the substitute trustee's deed showed that Catalyst purchased the property at foreclosure, the warranty deed showed that Catalyst conveyed it to PCH, and the occupants remained after receiving notices to vacate, thereby becoming tenants at sufferance.
  2. The validity of the foreclosure sale and the effect of the occupants' purported TILA rescission could not be determined in the forcible-detainer action; those issues must be brought in a separate suit.
  3. PCH was entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees because it provided notices to vacate satisfying Texas Property Code section 24.006(a) and prevailed on its possession claim.
  4. The amount of reasonable attorney's fees must be determined by the trial court on remand rather than by the appellate court.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether legally sufficient evidence established PCH's superior right to immediate possession in the forcible-detainer action.
  2. Whether the occupants' letters purporting to rescind the mortgage under the Truth in Lending Act invalidated the foreclosure sale and could defeat PCH's possession claim in the forcible-detainer action.
  3. Whether PCH was entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees under Texas Property Code section 24.006.
  4. Whether the amount of attorney's fees should be determined by the trial court on remand.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (8)

  • Vaughn v. Drennon, 324 S.W.3d 560, 562-63 (Tex. 2010) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Rossman v. Bishop Colo. Retail Plaza, L.P., 455 S.W.3d 797, 808 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, pet. denied)(followed)
  • Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam)(followed)
  • City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 807, 822 (Tex. 2005)(followed)
  • Williams v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 315 S.W.3d 925, 926-27 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.)(followed)
  • Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp., 417 S.W.3d 909, 915, 918 (Tex. 2013)(followed)
  • Williams v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 05-11-00434-CV, 2012 WL 1899156, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 27, 2012, no pet.)(followed)
  • Smith v. Patrick W.Y. Tam Trust, 296 S.W.3d 545, 547 (Tex. 2009)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…