From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chang v. Resolution Trust

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston, First District
Aug 15, 1991
814 S.W.2d 543 (Tex. App. 1991)

Summary

denying writ of prohibition/injunction in connection with attempted appeal of eviction action, noting that "We have we have no jurisdiction to review the issue of possession in a forcible detainer action where the premises are used for commercial purposes."

Summary of this case from In re Yogurt Culture, Inc.

Opinion

No. 01-91-00588-CV.

August 15, 1991.

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Harris County

Frank G. Waltermire, Houston, for relator.

Eric Lipper, Houston, for respondent.

Before DUGGAN, HUGHES and WILSON, JJ.


OPINION


Relator, John Chang, filed an emergency application for writ of prohibition or injunction on July 5, 1991, contending his appeal would become moot unless the removal of his property from his restaurant by the constable were halted. We granted leave to file and ordered a stay of all proceedings and removals from the premises that same date in accordance with TEX.R.APP.P. 121(d).

Relator is the owner of John Chang, Inc., which operates the Miyako Restaurant at 2444 Times Boulevard in Houston (the premises) under a lease. The Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) is the receiver of University Savings Association, holder of a promissory note and deed of trust on the premises. RTC foreclosed on the premises, when the lessor defaulted on the promissory note, and brought a suit for forcible detainer in the justice court against relator. In its final judgment of April 8, 1991, agreed to by both parties, the justice court found that the RTC was entitled to possession of the premises.

Relator did not appeal the judgment of the justice court. Instead, relator filed an equitable writ of certiorari in the county court. The county court denied the writ on July 2, 1991. Relator gave notice of appeal on July 3 and filed an appeal bond.

Under TEX.CIV.PRAC. REM.CODE ANN. Sec. 51.002(a), (d) (Vernon 1986), a case may be removed from the justice court to the county court by writ of certiorari, except in cases of forcible entry and detainer. Forcible entry and detainer actions may not be removed by writ of certiorari. Fox v. San Antonio Sav. Ass'n, 751 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1988, no writ); Crawford v. Siglar, 470 S.W.2d 915, 917 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Such actions are reviewable only by appeal to the S.W.2d at 257; Crawford, 470 S.W.2d at 917; TEX.R.CIV.P. 749. A final judgment of the county court in a forcible detainer suit may not be appealed on the issue of possession, unless the premises are used for residential purposes. Mullins v. Coussons, 745 S.W.2d 50, 51 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, orig. proceeding); TEX.PROP.CODE ANN. Sec. 24.007 (Vernon Supp. 1991).

A writ of prohibition is used to protect the subject matter of an appeal or to prohibit an unlawful interference with the enforcement of a superior court's orders and judgments. Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 683 (Tex. 1989); see also Hardy v. McCorkle, 765 S.W.2d 910, 913 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, orig. proceeding [leave overruled]. This Court is also empowered to grant injunctive relief for the purpose of protecting its jurisdiction over a pending appeal and to preserve the subject matter of the litigation so that its decree will be effective. Becker v. Becker, 639 S.W.2d 23, 24 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, orig. proceeding). In this case, either writ is sought to protect the subject matter of the appeal. However, we have no jurisdiction to review the issue of possession in a forcible detainer action where the premises are used for commercial purposes.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of prohibition or injunction is refused, and the temporary stay is ordered dissolved.


Summaries of

Chang v. Resolution Trust

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston, First District
Aug 15, 1991
814 S.W.2d 543 (Tex. App. 1991)

denying writ of prohibition/injunction in connection with attempted appeal of eviction action, noting that "We have we have no jurisdiction to review the issue of possession in a forcible detainer action where the premises are used for commercial purposes."

Summary of this case from In re Yogurt Culture, Inc.

declining to grant injunctive relief or writ of prohibition sought to protect pending appellate jurisdiction because court of appeals had no pending appellate jurisdiction to protect over judgment in forcible detainer action that awarded possession of commercial property

Summary of this case from Terra XXI, Ltd. v. Ag Acceptance Corp.

declining to grant injunctive relief or writ of prohibition sought to protect pending appellate jurisdiction because court of appeals had no pending appellate jurisdiction to protect over judgment in forcible-entry-and-detainer action that awarded possession of commercial property

Summary of this case from VOLUME MILLWORK v. WEST H. AP
Case details for

Chang v. Resolution Trust

Case Details

Full title:John CHANG, Relator, v. RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston, First District

Date published: Aug 15, 1991

Citations

814 S.W.2d 543 (Tex. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

VOLUME MILLWORK v. WEST H. AP

In keeping with this purpose, the Legislature has exercised its authority to limit this Court's jurisdiction…

Volume Millwork v. W. Houston Airport

In keeping with this purpose, the Legislature has exercised its authority to limit this Court's jurisdiction…