Ladonna Joseph v. Beaumont Housing Authority

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ladonna Joseph v. Beaumont Housing Authority

99 S.W.3d 765, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 1630, 2003 WL 366720

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 20, 2003

Docket09-02-00325-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 S.W.3d 765 (Ladonna Joseph v. Beaumont Housing Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ladonna Joseph v. Beaumont Housing Authority, 99 S.W.3d 765, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 1630, 2003 WL 366720 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Beaumont Housing Authority (BHA) filed a forcible detainer action against Ladonna Joseph for possession of the premises, coupled with a claim for unpaid rent. The Justice Court found Joseph was entitled to possession and BHA was entitled to $600 in unpaid rent. BHA appealed to County Court at Law Number 1. BHA. filed its appeal bond on March 18, 2002. Two days later, BHA entered into a new lease with Joseph. In July, the case was tried de novo to a jury. The jury found Joseph was in arrears $726.50 and a money judgment was entered against her for that amount. The trial court’s judgment also granted BHA possession of the premises.

On appeal, Joseph does not complain of the money judgment. The issues raised on appeal concern whether the trial court erred in entering judgment for possession of the premises in favor of BHA. BHA’s original petition asserted non-payment of rent under a lease executed in January of 2001. BHA did not amend its pleading after executing the new lease and no violation or breach under that lease was ever alleged. At the time of trial, Joseph was entitled to possession of the premises under the operative lease. Absent any evidence of breach of the March 2002 lease, the issue was not properly before the court. See generally Minor v. Kilgore, 38 S.W. 539 (Tex.Civ.App.1896). Therefore, we reverse and reform the trial court’s judgment to reflect that the writ of possession be denied. Otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Appellee’s raise a cross-point in their brief regarding the amount of arrearage but failed to file a notice of appeal. Accordingly, we may not grant the relief requested. See Tex.R.App. P. 25.1(b)(c).

The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Beaumont Housing Authority (BHA) filed a forcible detainer action against Ladonna Joseph for possession of the premises, coupled with a claim for unpaid rent. The Justice Court found Joseph was entitled to possession and BHA was entitled to $600 in unpaid rent. BHA appealed to County Court at Law Number 1. BHA. filed its appeal bond on March 18, 2002. Two days later, BHA entered into a new lease with Joseph. In July, the case was tried de novo to a jury. The jury found Joseph was in arrears $726.50 and a money judgment was entered against her for that amount. The trial court’s judgment also granted BHA possession of the premises.

On appeal, Joseph does not complain of the money judgment. The issues raised on appeal concern whether the trial court erred in entering judgment for possession of the premises in favor of BHA. BHA’s original petition asserted non-payment of rent under a lease executed in January of 2001. BHA did not amend its pleading after executing the new lease and no violation or breach under that lease was ever alleged. At the time of trial, Joseph was entitled to possession of the premises under the operative lease. Absent any evidence of breach of the March 2002 lease, the issue was not properly before the court. See generally Minor v. Kilgore, 38 S.W. 539 (Tex.Civ.App.1896). Therefore, we reverse and reform the trial court’s judgment to reflect that the writ of possession be denied. Otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Appellee’s raise a cross-point in their brief regarding the amount of arrearage but failed to file a notice of appeal. Accordingly, we may not grant the relief requested. See Tex.R.App. P. 25.1(b)(c).

The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.W.3d 765, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 1630, 2003 WL 366720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ladonna-joseph-v-beaumont-housing-authority-texapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack