Opinion
No. 05-05-00385-CV
Opinion issued January 11, 2006.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. cc-04-013870-b.
Affirmed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, WRIGHT, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this forcible detainer case, T. William "Bill" McIntyre, WTBM Holding Company, and TWBM Syndications, Inc. appeal the trial court's judgment awarding possession of the property at issue to Hewan Aklog. In a single issue, appellants contend the trial court erred by awarding possession of the property to appellee because appellee's written contract is not binding and the trial court should have enforced an oral agreement for appellants to purchase the property. We overrule appellants' sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment. Before turning to the merits of appellants' complaint, we first address appellee's contention that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal because the use of the property was not solely residential. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 24.007 (Vernon 2000) (final judgment of a county court in an eviction suit may not be appealed on issue of possession unless premises is being used for residential purposes only). According to appellee, "while there is no reporter's record, the canceled checks attached to [appellee's response] are issued by corporations" and "corporations would have no need for a residence." However, the record in this case does contain a reporter's record filed on March 22, 2005. And, while this issue was not directly developed at trial, the reporter's record shows that McIntyre testified appellants agreed to take over appellee's note on the property as a favor to appellee and that "we had an attorney, Amanda A. Mode, coming from Houston, to work at the legal research firm, and she would reside there." There is nothing in the record to suggest that the property was being used for any purpose other than as Mode's residence. Consequently, we conclude appellee's jurisdictional complaint lacks merit.
McIntyre is an "owner of interest" in TWBM Holding Company and TWBM Syndications, Inc. According to McIntryre, TWBM Holding and TWBM Syndications are "the two major firms that my other companies do d/b/a's under."
We now turn to the merits of appellants' appeal. Although difficult to discern, we construe appellants' argument as (1) the trial court erred by awarding possession of the property to appellee pursuant to a written contract because the written lease agreement was not enforceable, and (2) the trial court should have enforced appellants' oral contract to purchase the property in question. We cannot agree with either contention.
At trial, Getye Aschalew, appellee's husband, testified that he and his wife own the property in question and they offered to lease it to appellants. Aschalew took a written lease to McIntye for his signature, but McIntrye never signed or returned the lease to Aschalew or his wife. Thereafter, McIntrye orally agreed to a month-to-month lease at a rate of $750 per month, and took physical possession of the property. Appellants failed to pay rent for October 2004, November 2004, December 2004, or January 2005. Because the trial court could have believed Aschalew's testimony regarding an oral month-to-month lease, appellants' argument based on the propriety of awarding possession pursuant to a nonbinding written contract lacks merit.
To the extent appellants contend the trial court should have enforced the oral agreement providing for appellants' purchase of the property, the county court at law's jurisdiction over the case was limited to the sole issue of possession and it did not have jurisdiction to determine or adjudicate title to land. See Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705, 708-09 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, no pet.). And, in any event, an oral agreement for the sale of real estate is unenforceable as a matter of law. See Tex. Bus. Com. Code Ann. § 26.01 (Vernon Supp. 2005). We overrule appellants' sole issue.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.