Aderemi v. Massandra KV Vineyards Owner LLC
| Docket Number | 01-22-00520-CV,01-22-00525-CV |
| Decision Date | 31 October 2023 |
| Parties | ADERONKE ADEREMI, Appellant v. MASSANDRA KV VINEYARDS OWNER LLC, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO PAC VINEYARDS LLC, Appellee IN RE ADERONKE ADEREMI, Relator |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1176890
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Farris.
April L. Farris, Justice In this forcible detainer action, appellant Aderonke Aderemi appeals from the county court's judgment awarding possession of an apartment to appellee Massandra KV Vineyards Owner LLC ("Massandra"), as alleged successor-in-interest to PAC Vineyards LLC ("PAC Vineyards"). On appeal Aderemi raises thirteen issues, including that Massandra lacked standing to sue and that no evidence established Massandra had a superior right to immediate possession of the apartment.[1] For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that Massandra had standing to bring the eviction suit, but the evidence was legally insufficient to establish Massandra's right to possession. Accordingly, we reverse and render judgment.
Aderemi also filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court stay enforcement of the county court's post-judgment order directing the issuance of a writ of possession. We dismiss the petition as moot.
In October 2020, Aderemi and PAC Vineyards entered into a lease agreement for an apartment unit at the Vineyards apartment complex in Harris County. The lease conveyed possession of the apartment to Aderemi for seventeen months from November 2020 to April 2022. In April and May 2021, PAC Vineyards sent Aderemi three notices stating that she had violated the lease by having garage sales on Vineyards' grounds and refusing access to her apartment for required inspections.
In June 2021, PAC Vineyards sent Aderemi a notice of eviction. According to the notice, PAC Vineyards was terminating the lease due to the lease violations described in the prior notices and because PAC Vineyards had received complaints that Aderemi was harassing and threatening other Vineyards residents. The letter requested that Aderemi vacate her apartment within three days. Aderemi did not vacate the apartment.
In June 2021, PAC Vineyards filed an original petition for eviction against Aderemi in Harris County justice court. See Tex. Prop. Code § 24.004(a) (). In August 2021, Massandra filed a verified first amended petition.[2] The amended petition substituted Massandra as plaintiff, stating that Massandra was the successor-in-interest of PAC Vineyards and was the "owner and landlord" of the Vineyards apartment complex. Massandra's authorized representative averred in the verification that each of the facts alleged in the petition were within her personal knowledge and were true and correct.
The amended petition alleged that Massandra and Aderemi entered into a lease agreement conveying possession of the apartment to Aderemi. The amended petition further alleged that Aderemi had violated various provisions of the lease, and Massandra had sent Aderemi a notice to vacate the apartment, but Aderemi refused to vacate the apartment and was in possession when the amended petition was filed. Massandra requested an award of possession of the apartment and other relief, including attorney's fees, costs, and interest.
In September 2021, the justice court signed a judgment awarding Massandra possession of the apartment. Aderemi appealed the justice court's judgment to the county court for trial de novo. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.9(a) (), 510.10(c) ( that appeal of eviction judgment is by trial de novo in county court). Aderemi also filed an amended answer in the county court generally denying Massandra's allegations and asserting several affirmative defenses. Massandra did not file any additional pleadings in the county court, so its live pleading was the first amended petition that it had filed in the justice court.
On December 6, 2021, the county court held a one-day bench trial in this case. The court admitted several documents into evidence, including the lease agreement between Aderemi and PAC Vineyards, the three lease-violation notices, and the eviction notice.
Nancy Hernandez, an assistant property manager at the Vineyards apartment complex, testified at trial. Massandra's counsel asked Hernandez if "the current entity that owns the Vineyards . . . took over that property from another entity fairly recently" and if "it's fair to say y'all are the new management." Without further explanation, Hernandez answered both questions in the affirmative.
Several times during trial, the county court raised the issue of whether Massandra was a proper party. At the outset, the judge mentioned potential pleading issues and directed the parties to discuss "what the pleadings are" off the record. The court recessed, and afterwards the judge noted that the original petition listed PAC Vineyards as the sole plaintiff while the amended petition listed Massandra as the sole plaintiff. During Aderemi's case-in-chief, the court acknowledged an objection "to the party." Massandra's counsel represented that "the Vineyards [apartment complex] [is] currently owned by Massandra," but the court stated that "[t]here is nothing in the record as to when the current owner of this property took over this property." Massandra's counsel argued that Hernandez had testified about ownership of the apartment complex.
At the end of trial, the court orally announced that judgment would be for Massandra.
On April 5, 2022, the county court entered final judgment awarding possession of the apartment to Massandra. The judgment stated that Massandra was "entitled to obtain a Writ of Possession." The judgment also set a supersedeas bond in the amount of $12,480.
Aderemi filed a supersedeas bond on April 6, the day after the judgment was signed. She also deposited $12,480 into the court's registry. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.1(a)(2) (providing that judgment may be superseded by filing bond), (c)(1) (providing that, alternatively, judgment may be superseded by depositing funds in court's registry). Aderemi filed a notice of appeal on July 5, 2022.
After requesting that each party file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the county court adopted Massandra's proposed findings and conclusions. Finding No. 1 stated that "the parties entered into a lease contract . . . that conveyed to [Aderemi] the right of possession" to the subject apartment. The court ultimately concluded that Massandra was "entitled to possession" of the apartment.
On Massandra's motion, the court entered an order directing the county clerk to issue a writ of possession "in conformity with the final judgment."[3] The court entered the order on July 15, 2022, after Aderemi had posted a supersedeas bond, deposited funds into the court's registry, and filed a notice of appeal.
Also on July 15, Aderemi filed an emergency petition for writ of mandamus in this Court requesting that we stay the county court's July 15 order and stay execution of the writ of possession. The same day, this Court entered a temporary order staying enforcement of the county court's order. Four days later, Aderemi filed an emergency motion in this Court arguing that despite this Court's stay order, she had received a notice to vacate the apartment within 24 hours. Aderemi's motion included the notice to vacate. The following day, this Court issued a second order stating that "[a]ny efforts to execute on the trial court's July 15, 2022 order granting Massandra's 'Motion to Issue Writ of Possession' are stayed pending resolution of [Aderemi's] petition for writ of mandamus" or further order of this Court.
Throughout most of her issues, Aderemi argues that Massandra offered no evidence proving that it was PAC Vineyards' successor-in-interest or that it was the actual owner or landlord of the apartment. Aderemi contends that Massandra therefore lacked standing to bring the eviction suit. For the reasons discussed below, we disagree that this presents an issue of standing and conclude that Massandra had standing to sue.
However Aderemi's arguments also encompass the issue whether the evidence is legally sufficient to prove that Massandra had a right to possession of the apartment. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.3(e); Isaac v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 563 S.W.3d 305, 310 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) (); see also Li v. Pemberton Park Cmty. Ass'n, 631 S.W.3d 701, 706 (Tex. 2021) (per curiam) ( that courts should review and evaluate pro se pleadings with liberality and patience); Manderscheid v. LAZ Parking of Tex., LLC, 506 S.W.3d 521, 522 n.1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (op. on reh'g) (applying liberal construction to pro se party's appellate brief). For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that no evidence establishes Massandra had a right to possession of the apartment.
On appeal, Aderemi primarily challenges Massandra's standing to sue.
Standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit, it may not be waived, and it may be raised for the first time on appeal. Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 150 (Tex. 2012); Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445-46 (Tex. 1993). The plaintiff has the burden to affirmatively demonstrate...
To continue reading
Request your trial