Christopher Mitchell v. North East Pine Village Home Owner Association

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 19, 2025
• Docket: 01-23-00787-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued August 19, 2025.

In the

Court of Appeals for the

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00787-CV ——————————— CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, Appellant v. NORTH EAST PINE VILLAGE HOME OWNER ASSOCIATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the Civil Court at Law No. 3 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1208793

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se appellant Christopher Mitchell appeals from the judgment obtained

by appellee Northeast Pine Village Home Owners Association (the HOA) in a

forcible-detainer action. Mitchell argues that the judgment was void because the

HOA lacked standing to pursue a forcible-detainer action. The HOA argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Mitchell’s appeal for reasons including that

Mitchell did not timely perfect his appeal, and moves to dismiss Mitchell’s appeal

on that basis.

Because the county court lacked jurisdiction, meaning this Court also lacks

jurisdiction, we vacate the county court’s judgment and dismiss the case.

Background

Cynthia Kirston Newman and Judy Metz Schilling owned residential real

property subject to the HOA. The HOA acquired the Newman-Schilling property

at a foreclosure sale in 2018. In June 2023, the HOA filed a forcible-detainer

action in a Harris County justice court to remove Newman and Schilling from the

premises. On Thursday, June 22, 2023, the justice court awarded the HOA

possession of the property. Six days later—on Wednesday, June 28, 2023—

Schilling filed a notice of appeal to Harris County Civil Court at Law No. 3. See

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.001(a) (stating that parties can generally

appeal justice-court judgments to the county court); TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.9

(describing procedure for appeal from justice-court judgment in eviction suit).

Schilling died shortly before the county court heard her appeal. Mitchell

appeared pro se in the county court proceeding by filing a motion to dismiss or, in

the alternative, plea in abatement. Mitchell’s submission included a plea to the

2 jurisdiction. At the bench trial on October 10, 2023,1 Mitchell claimed an interest

in the property formerly owned by Newman and Schilling under Schilling’s will

and based on his having allegedly lived with Schilling in the property and provided

caregiving to Schilling for the last five years of Schilling’s life. Mitchell stated that

he was still living in the property. On October 16, 2023, the county court signed a

final judgment stating that the HOA had possession of the property and giving all

current occupants 10 days to vacate. On October 20, 2023, Mitchell filed a notice

of appeal. The HOA’s arguments include that this Court does not have subject-

matter jurisdiction because neither Schilling nor Mitchell timely perfected an

appeal from the justice court decision.

Analysis

An appeal from a justice court’s judgment in a forcible-detainer action must

be perfected within five days of the date the judgment was signed. TEX. R. CIV. P.

510.9(a), (f); Mohammed v. D. 1050 W. Rankin, Inc., 464 S.W.3d 737, 743 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.). The five-day deadline is jurisdictional.

See Carrasco v. Morse, No. 08-23-00341-CV, 2024 WL 4457243, at *1 (Tex.

App.—El Paso Oct. 9, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Failure to file a timely appeal 1 An appeal from a justice court’s forcible detainer judgment is to the county court, which does not sit as a true appellate court but instead conducts a “trial de novo,” i.e., “a new trial in which the entire case is presented as if there had been no previous trial.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.10(c). Once an appeal is perfected from a justice court to a county court at law for trial de novo, the judgment of the justice court is annulled and vacated. Praise Deliverance Church v. Jelinis, LLC, 536 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied). 3 [under rule 510.9(a)] deprives the county court of jurisdiction over the de novo

appeal, and deprives our court of jurisdiction over any subsequent judgment.”);

Adams v. Ross, No. 01-11-00098-CV, 2013 WL 1183297, at *3 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 21, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (applying predecessor

to rule 510.9(a) that required party seeking to appeal from final judgment in

forcible detainer case to file bond within five days of judgment, holding that

county court did not acquire jurisdiction over appeal filed by parties who did not

meet rule’s five-day deadline). Our appellate jurisdiction as to the merits of a case

extends no further than that of the county court from which this appeal was taken.

Pearson v. State, 315 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tex. 1958) (“It is well settled that the

jurisdiction of the appellate court as to the merits of a case extends no further than

that of the court from which the appeal is taken.”); see also Mills v. Warner

Lambert Co., 157 S.W.3d 424, 426 (Tex. 2005) (quoting Pearson); Univ. of Tex.

Sys. v. Thomas, 464 S.W.3d 754, 760 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no

pet.) (citing Johnson v. Ventling, 132 S.W.3d 173, 179 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi

2004, no pet.) (citing Pearson)).

Here, the only appeal to the county court was taken by Schilling, who filed

her notice of appeal on June 28, 2023—six days after the justice court’s June 22,

4 2023 judgment.2 The county court thus never acquired jurisdiction over the only

appeal that was filed from the justice court’s judgment, and we do not have

jurisdiction over Mitchell’s appeal from the county court’s judgment. See

Hernandez v. Nat’l Church Residences of Grand Prairie, TX, No. 05-19-00705-

CV, 2019 WL 4027081, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem.

op.) (setting aside county court’s judgment and dismissing cause because pro se

appellant filed appeal from justice court eviction judgment one day after rule

510.9(a)’s five-day deadline); Milligan v. HP Tex. I LLC, No. 05-18-01467-CV,

2019 WL 1284611, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 19, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(same); Loud v. Swafford, No. 05-17-00739-CV, 2017 WL 3668604, at *1-2 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Aug. 25, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); Kellam v. Harbors &

Plumtree, No. 05-17-00443-CV, 2017 WL 3529156, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas

Aug. 17, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same).

Because the county court also lacked jurisdiction, the proper remedy is to

vacate the county court’s judgment and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Charles v. Invum Three, LLC, No. 01-24-00128-CV, 2025 WL 1759014, at *5

2 In Mohammed, we held that a delay in notice of the justice court’s judgment can extend the timetable for filing an appeal bond. Mohammed, 464 S.W.3d at 743-44 (“the justice court rules presume as a fundamental matter of due process that the affected party had notice of the hearing and the judgment against it in time to perfect an appeal”). Here, appellant does not allege any delay in notice to Schilling, who appears from the record to have been present at the June 22, 2023 justice court trial. 5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 26, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (citing Riley

v. Deanda, 706 S.W.3d 578, 583-84 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2024, no

pet.)).

Conclusion

We grant the HOA’s motion to dismiss, vacate the October 16, 2023

judgment of Harris County Civil Court at Law No. 3, and dismiss the case for lack

of jurisdiction.

Amparo “Amy” Guerra Justice

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.