Andrea K. Randle v. AT Owner 18, L.P.

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-22-00319-CV

ANDREA K. RANDLE, APPELLANT

V.

AT OWNER 18, L.P., APPELLEE

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022-02311-JP, Honorable Robert Ramirez, Presiding

September 20, 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Andrea K. Randle, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals

from the trial court’s Final Judgment awarding Appellee, AT Owner 18, L.P., immediate

possession of the premises and finding her liable for $12,920 in attorney’s fees in a

forcible detainer suit. By her brief, Randle presents five issues as follows: (1) in justice

court, the judgment was based on hearsay and the allegations had no merit or substance;

(2) on appeal to county court at law, the decision was based on hearsay; (3) in justice court, “obvious evidence” was disregarded and the evidence presented was not credible;

(4) her counter suit was not addressed or acknowledged by the county court at law; and

(5) the county court at law judge was not impartial. 1 We affirm.

BACKGROUND

AT Owner 18 filed a forcible entry and detainer suit to evict Randle from an

apartment complex for breaching the terms of her lease by allowing an individual not listed

on the lease to reside with her. AT Owner 18 also alleged the lease was violated by

threats of harm with a firearm to another tenant of the complex. Randle responded to the

suit with an Affidavit of Truth averring that security for her apartment complex

continuously harassed her and her son. She also claimed “irritated” neighbors made false

complaints to the leasing office. A jury found in favor of AT Owner 18 and Randle

appealed to the county court at law.

Randle filed a motion for summary judgment and a counter suit. She alleged the

apartment complex had refused maintenance requests and conspired, retaliated, and

discriminated against her. She also asserted the alleged lease violations were invalid.

The trial court awarded possession of the premises to AT Owner 18 and ordered

immediate removal of Randle’s possessions.

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by

the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. Should a conflict exist between precedent of the Second Court of Appeals and this Court on any relevant issue, this appeal will be decided in accordance with the precedent of the transferor court. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.

2 APPLICABLE LAW

Forcible detainer actions are governed by Rule 510 of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure. TEX. R. CIV. P. 510. In such suits, the only issue adjudicated is the right to

actual possession. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.3(e). See also Jimenez v. McGeary, 542

S.W.3d 810, 812, 814 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, pet. denied).

ISSUES ONE AND THREE—JUSTICE COURT COMPLAINTS

Randle raises evidentiary issues of hearsay and “obvious evidence” which the

justice court disregarded. A justice court’s judgment is appealed to county court for de

novo review. TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.9(a), 510.10(c). This Court does not have jurisdiction

over complaints regarding alleged errors in a forcible detainer suit in justice court. Wethy

v. Fannie Mae, No. 02-17-00329-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 4280, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth May 23, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). Issues one and three are overruled.

ISSUE TWO—HEARSAY

Randle asserts the county court at law’s judgment is based on hearsay. She had

the burden to bring forward a sufficient record showing alleged error by the trial court.

Remigio v. Armenta, No. 02-21-00298-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 4670, at *3 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth July 7, 2022, no pet.) (citing Nicholson v. Fifth Third Bank, 226 S.W.3d

581, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.)). Whereas here, Randle did not

request preparation of a reporter’s record, we have no way to determine whether the trial

court abused its discretion in admitting evidence. 2 Ex parte D.K., No. 02-22-00020-CV,

2 This appeal was remanded to the trial court to determine why a reporter’s record had not been

filed. The trial court found Randle never requested designation or preparation of the record and directed 3 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 7963, at *5–6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 27, 2022, pet. denied)

(mem. op.). Therefore, we must presume any evidence presented in the trial court was

sufficient to support the judgment. Id. Issue two is overruled.

ISSUE FOUR—COUNTERSUIT

Randle complains of the trial court’s disregard for her countersuit. Rule 510.3(e)

provides that in a forcible detainer suit, the only issue is actual possession. TEX. R. CIV.

P. 510.3(e). It recites “[c]ounterclaims . . . are not permitted in eviction cases.” Id. Thus,

the trial court did not err in declining to rule on her countersuit. Issue four is overruled.

ISSUE FIVE—TRIAL COURT’S IMPARTIALITY

Randle argues the county court at law judge was not impartial. Rule 18b of the

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides the grounds for recusal or disqualification of a

judge. TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b. The scope of review for a claim of an impartial judge is the

entire record. Akin v. State, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 6408, at *15 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

Aug. 11, 2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Once again, without

a reporter’s record, this Court is unable to review a claim of impartiality. TEX. R. APP. P.

37.3(c). Issue five is overruled.

the court reporter to provide an affidavit to that effect. Randle v. AT Owner 18, L.P., No. 07-22-00319-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 1455, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo March 7, 2023, order). By letter, this Court admonished Randle that only issues which could be reviewed without a reporter’s record would be considered. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). 4 CONCLUSION

The trial court’s Final Judgment is affirmed.

Alex Yarbrough Justice