315 S.W.3d 925 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010), 05-09-00710-CV, Williams v. Bank of New York Mellon

Docket Nº:05-09-00710-CV.
Citation:315 S.W.3d 925
Opinion Judge:MYERS, Justice.
Party Name:Glen WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Trustee, Appellee.
Attorney:Michael Brinkley, Brinkley Law PLLC, Ft. Worth, TX, for Appellant. Jack O'Boyle, Jack O'Boyle and Associates, Dallas, TX, for Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before Justices RICHTER, LANG-MIERS, and MYERS.
Case Date:June 30, 2010
Court:Court of Appeals of Texas
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 925

315 S.W.3d 925 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010)

Glen WILLIAMS, Appellant,

v.

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Trustee, Appellee.

No. 05-09-00710-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

June 30, 2010

Page 926

Michael Brinkley, Brinkley Law PLLC, Ft. Worth, TX, for Appellant.

Jack O'Boyle, Jack O'Boyle and Associates, Dallas, TX, for Appellee.

Before Justices RICHTER, LANG-MIERS, and MYERS.

OPINION

MYERS, Justice.

Glen Williams appeals the trial court's judgment awarding possession of real estate to Bank of New York Mellon, Trustee. Appellant brings one " point of error" asserting the trial court erred in granting judgment for appellee because the deed tendered to the court by appellee was not sufficient to support a prima facie claim of title. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

BACKGROUND

In 2005, appellant borrowed $80,000, secured by a deed of trust on his house. The deed of trust provided that if appellant defaulted, the trustee could sell the property. The deed of trust also stated that if appellant did not surrender possession of the property after it was sold, he " shall be a tenant at sufferance and may be removed by writ of possession or other court proceeding." In 2009, the property was posted for foreclosure and was sold to appellee at public auction. Appellee received a substitute trustee's deed for the property. After the foreclosure auction, appellee sent appellant and the other residents of the property notice that they were tenants at sufferance and that appellee demanded they vacate the property within three days. The notice informed the residents that a forcible detainer action would be filed in a few days seeking a writ of possession. Appellant and the other residents did not vacate the property, and appellee filed a petition for forcible detainer in the justice court. The justice court ruled that appellee was entitled to possession of the premises. Appellant appealed the ruling to the county court at law. After a trial de novo, the county court at law ordered that appellee have judgment of possession against Williams and all other residents of the property. Appellant now appeals the county court at law's decision.

FORCIBLE DETAINER ACTIONS

A forcible detainer action is a procedure to determine the right to immediate possession of real property where there was no unlawful entry. Rice v....

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP