Opinion
03-23-00278-CV
10-30-2024
CCS Asset Management, LLC; and LJA Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Midtown Live, Appellants v. Bigoton Group, LLC; and John Hoberman, Appellees
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C-1-CV-23-000977, THE HONORABLE TODD T. WONG, JUDGE PRESIDING
Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Kelly
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Thomas J. Baker, Justice
This eviction case began as a forcible-entry-and-detainer suit in justice court and is now appealed by the tenants after a trial de novo in county court, the trial court here. Appellants, CCS Asset Management, LLC, and LJA Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Midtown Live (collectively, "Tenants"), present two issues challenging the trial court's judgment. In their first issue, Tenants assert that the judgment is void because of lack of service of process on LJA Ventures, Inc. In their second issue, Tenants challenge the trial court's judgment awarding possession of the leased premises to appellee Bigoton Group, LLC ("Landlord"). Because Tenants' second issue challenges Landlord's right of possession to commercial premises, Texas Property Code section 24.007 deprives us of jurisdiction to review that issue. See Tex. Prop. Code § 24.007. Accordingly, we dismiss Tenants' second appellate issue. We affirm the trial court's judgment in all other respects.
BACKGROUND
Tenants occupied Unit E of Lot 2, Resubdivision of Lot 11, Regan Hill (the Leased Premises) pursuant to an oral lease from Landlord. Tenants operated a bar and restaurant called Mid-Town Live in the Leased Premises. In December 2022, Landlord brought a forcible-entry-and-detainer suit in justice court seeking to evict Tenants from the premises for failure to pay rent and on the additional ground that Tenants had allowed a liability insurance policy to lapse. LJA Ventures, Inc., filed an answer stating that it did "not dispute that it has not paid rent since December of 2022" and further did "not dispute [Landlord] is entitled to possession of the premises." CCS Asset Management, Inc., did not file an answer but appeared through counsel to seek a continuance of the January 30, 2023 eviction hearing. The court granted the continuance and set the case for trial on February 16, 2023.
On February 16, 2023, the case was tried to the justice court. After trial, the court rendered judgment in Landlord's favor and issued to Landlord a writ of possession of the Leased Premises. Tenants appealed the judgment to the Travis County Court at Law for trial de novo. Following a bench trial de novo, the trial court rendered judgment granting Landlord possession. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
In their first issue, Tenants assert that the clerk's record does not include evidence that LJA Ventures, Inc., was served with process and, consequently, the court did not have jurisdiction to render judgment against LJA Ventures, Inc. As previously noted, the record reflects that LJA Ventures, Inc., appeared in the forcible-entry-and-detainer proceeding by filing an answer. When a party files an answer, the answer "constitute[s] an appearance of the defendant so as to dispense with the necessity for the issuance or service of citation upon him." Tex. R. Civ. P. 121; Hofrock v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No 03-16-00114-CV, 2016 WL 6938771, at * 3 (Tex. App.-Austin Nov. 22, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). Thus, Tenants have waived any complaints about service on LJA Ventures, Inc., by making an appearance. See Phillips v. Dallas Cnty. Child Protective Servs. Unit, 197 S.W.3d 862, 865 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied) ("Filing an answer waives any complaints about service."). We overrule Tenants' first appellate issue.
In their second issue, Tenants challenge the trial court's judgment awarding possession of the Leased Premises to Landlord. Specifically, Tenants assert that there was no enforceable lease between Tenants and Landlord that would entitle Landlord to possession of the Leased Premises upon nonpayment of rent. Texas Property Code section 24.007 deprives this Court of jurisdiction to address this issue. See Tex. Prop. Code § 24.007.
The Texas Constitution and the Legislature vest courts of appeals with jurisdiction over civil appeals from final judgments of district and county courts, provided the amount in controversy or the judgment exceeds $250. Tex. Const. art. V, § 6(a); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.012; Tex. Gov't Code § 22.220(a). The constitutionally authorized right of appeal may be limited, however, by "such restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by law[,]" specifically, by legislative action. See Sultan v. Mathew, 178 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Tex. 2005) (emphasis in original) (quoting Tex. Const. art. V, § 6(a)). Thus, "'the principle is fixed that the Legislature has the power to limit the right of appeal.'" Id. (quoting Seale v. McCallum, 287 S.W. 45, 47 (Tex. 1926)).
Forcible-entry-and-detainer actions provide a speedy, summary, and inexpensive determination of the right to immediate possession of real property. Scott v. Hewitt, 90 S.W.2d 816, 818-19 (Tex. 1936); Gibson v. Dynegy Midstream Servs., L.P., 138 S.W.3d 518, 522 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet.). In keeping with this purpose, the Legislature has exercised its authority to limit this Court's jurisdiction in appeals from forcible-entry-and-detainer eviction proceedings by enacting section 24.007 of the Property Code, pursuant to which, "A final judgment of a county court in an eviction suit may not be appealed on the issue of possession unless the premises in question are being used for residential purposes only." Tex. Prop. Code § 24.007 (emphasis added); see also In re Yogurt Culture, Inc., No. 01-18-00678-CV, 2018 WL 4568406, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 25, 2018, orig. proceeding) (court lacked jurisdiction over appeal from eviction suit when premises leased were used for commercial purposes); Carlson's Hill Country Beverage, L.C. v. Westinghouse Road Joint Venture, 957 S.W.2d 951, 952-53 (Tex. App.-Austin 1997, no pet.) (concluding that section 24.007 precluded appellate review not only of issue of possession of commercial premises but also of "any finding essential to the issue of possession").
It is undisputed that Tenants used the Leased Property as a business location to operate a bar and restaurant. After the justice court awarded possession to Landlord, Tenants appealed that issue for trial de novo to the county court below, which again awarded possession to Landlord. We have no jurisdiction, therefore, to review either the county court's determination on the issue of Landlord's possession of the Leased Premises or any finding by the trial court that is essential to the issue of possession of the Leased Premises. Tex. Prop. Code § 24.007. Because Tenants' second issue challenges Landlord's right to possess commercial premises, we dismiss Tenants' appeal as to that issue for lack of jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated in this opinion, we dismiss Tenants' appeal with respect to issue two. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Affirmed in Part, Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction in Part.