Monique Harris and All Other Occupants v. Masumeh, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 27, 2025
• Docket: 01-24-00196-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued February 27, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00196-CV ——————————— MONIQUE HARRIS AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellants V. MASUMEH, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 1 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1218145

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants Monique Harris and all other occupants (collectively, Harris)

appeal a forcible detainer judgment in favor of appellee Masumeh, LLC. In two

issues, Harris challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.

We affirm. Background

Masumeh, LLC filed the underlying forcible detainer suit against Harris in a

justice court on October 27, 2023. In its petition, Masumeh, LLC alleged that it

entered into a lease agreement with Harris for the real property located at 6343

Mystic Bridge Drive, Houston, Texas 77021 (the property). Under the terms of the

agreement, Harris agreed to pay $3,550.00 per month to lease the property from

Masumeh, LLC.

Masumeh, LLC alleged that Harris defaulted on the lease agreement by failing

to pay the rent due from June 2023 to October 2023, and that, despite giving Harris

written notice to vacate the property, she refused to vacate. Masumeh, LLC sought

possession of the property, unpaid rent, attorney’s fees, and court costs. It attached

as an exhibit to the petition a copy of the parties’ residential lease agreement.

The justice court entered a judgment awarding possession of the property to

Masumeh, LLC, payment of rent owed in the amount of $18,923.52, $1,200.00 in

attorney’s fees, and court costs. The judgment further ordered Harris to pay

$3,550.00 for each rental pay period during the pendency of any appeal.

Harris appealed the judgment to a county civil court at law.1 The county court

conducted a bench trial, and the court reporter has certified that no record was made

1 Justice courts have original jurisdiction over forcible detainer suits. See TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.004(a); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE § 27.031(a)(2). A party who is 2 of the proceedings. Following the trial de novo, the county court entered a judgment

and order awarding Masumeh, LLC possession of the property, $20,000.00 as rent

owed, $2,000.00 in attorney’s fees, and court costs.

Discussion

Harris challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the county court’s

judgment. She argues that the lease agreement, absent a conveying document such

as a deed, is insufficient to establish that Masumeh, LLC owns, or is an agent of, the

property and is therefore insufficient to establish its superior right of possession.

Masumeh, LLC responds that (1) the question of possession in this case

depends on a landlord-tenant relationship and does not involve a title dispute, (2)

Harris failed to file a reporter’s record of the trial court proceedings, (3) absent

findings of fact and conclusions of law, an appellate court must presume that the trial

court found all findings of fact necessary to support its judgment, and (4) Harris’s

appellate brief fails to comply with the briefing requirements of Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 38.1(i). Masumeh, LLC seeks an award of sanctions against

Harris under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 45.

A. Forcible Detainer

dissatisfied with a justice court judgment in such a suit may appeal to a county court for a trial de novo. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.9. 3 A landlord may file a forcible detainer action to reclaim possession of property

when a tenant refuses to surrender possession of the subject property on demand.

See TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.002(a). A forcible detainer action is dependent on proof

of a landlord-tenant relationship. See Trimble v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 516

S.W.3d 24, 29 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied); Villalon v. Bank

One, 176 S.W.3d 66, 70 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d); Rice v.

Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705, 712 (Tex. App.—-Dallas 2001, no pet.). The only issue to

be determined in a forcible detainer action is the entitlement to actual and immediate

possession of real property. Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d

782, 785 (Tex. 2006). A determination of title, however, “shall not be adjudicated.”

Pina v. Pina, 371 S.W.3d 361, 364–65 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no

pet.); accord Williams v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 315 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2010, no pet.) (“To maintain simplicity, the applicable rule of procedure

provides that ‘the only issue shall be as to the right to actual possession; and the

merits of the title shall not be adjudicated.”’ (quoting TEX. R. CIV. P. 746)).

B. Evidentiary Sufficiency

Harris appeals the sufficiency of the evidence to support the county court’s

judgment in favor of Masumeh, LLC. The court reporter has certified that no

reporter’s record exists of the county court bench trial. An appellant has the burden

4 to bring forward a sufficient record to show the trial court’s alleged error. Nicholson

v. Fifth Third Bank, 226 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no

pet.) (“[An appellant] cannot prevail in any evidentiary challenge without first

meeting his burden of presenting a sufficient record on appeal.”). When a party raises

an issue on appeal relying on evidence presented to the trial court—as Harris does

here in her evidentiary challenge—we must presume the trial court had before it and

determined all facts necessary in support of the judgment absent any record of what

evidence the trial court considered. See Bennett v. Cochran, 96 S.W.3d 227, 229–30

(Tex. 2002) (per curiam) (“The court of appeals was correct in holding that, absent

a complete record on appeal, it must presume the omitted items supported the trial

court’s judgment.” (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Gallagher v. Fire Ins.

Exch., 950 S.W.2d 370, 371 (Tex. 1997)); see also Onwubuche v. Olowolayemo, No.

01-10-00945-CV, 2012 WL 1067950, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar.

29, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Onwubuche did not file a reporter’s record as part

of his record on appeal. We therefore must presume that the reporter’s record

contains evidence to support the trial court’s rulings on all issues of fact.”).

Accordingly, we presume the trial court found the necessary facts to establish that

Masumeh, LLC had the superior claim to immediate possession of the property. See

Bennett, 96 S.W.3d at 229–30; Onwubuche, 2012 WL 1067950, at *3. We overrule

Harris’s first and second issues. See Gbadmassi v. Ron Ray L.P., 04-21-00170-CV,

5 2022 WL 2346630, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 30, 2022, no pet.) (mem.

op.) (presuming trial court found necessary facts to establish landlord’s right to past-

due rent, post-judgment interest, and attorney’s fees in eviction case where tenant

raised evidentiary challenge to county court’s judgment and no reporter’s record of

county court bench trial existed); Roberson v. Chevalier, 01-13-00307-CV, 2014

WL 3512767, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 15, 2014, no pet.)

(rejecting defendant’s evidentiary challenges to county court’s judgment in forcible

detainer suit where no reporter’s record of trial proceedings existed, and court of

appeals presumed trial court determined all facts necessary to its judgment); Callejas

v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, No. 01-10-00932-CV, 2011 WL 2923759, at *1 (Tex.

App—Houston [1st Dist.] July 21, 2011, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (mem. op.) (concluding

defendants could not prevail on evidentiary issues raised on appeal of forcible

detainer action where no reporter’s record of trial existed).

C. Sanctions

In its appellate brief, Masumeh, LLC argues that Harris’s appeal is frivolous

because she raises an evidentiary challenge to the county court’s judgment, but there

is no reporter’s record of the proceedings. It asserts that it is entitled to damages

under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 45 because “[t]he filing of the [notice of

6 appeal on February 26, 2024] and “[] languid pace of finally filing a brief on

September 11, 2024, originally due on May 31, 2024, has damaged Appellee” and

“delayed Appellant’s [sic] rightful possession to the property and has caused it to

expend time, money, effort, and other resources to defend the appeal.”

Under Texas Rule of Appellate Rule 45, we may award “just damages” for a

frivolous appeal on the motion of any party or on our own initiative. T EX. R. APP.

P. 45; Pantlitz v. Sikkenga, 01-10-00581-CV, 2011 WL 5116464, at *5 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 27, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Smith v. Brown, 51

S.W.3d 376, 381 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied)). We apply an

objective test to determine whether an appeal is frivolous and conduct a full

examination of the record and all the proceedings from the viewpoint of the

advocate. Panlitz, 2011 WL 5116464, at *5; Smith, 51 S.W.3d at 381. The goal of

this inquiry is to determine whether the advocate had reasonable grounds to believe

that the trial court’s judgment should be reversed. Panlitz, 2011 WL 5116464, at *5;

Smith, 51 S.W.3d at 381. We exercise prudence and caution and deliberate carefully

before awarding damages under Rule 45. Panlitz, 2011 WL 5116464, at *5; Smith,

51 S.W.3d at 381. We award sanctions in truly egregious circumstances. Panlitz,

2011 WL 5116464, at *5 (citing Goss v. Hous. Cmty. Newspapers, 252 S.W.3d 652,

657 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.)).

7 An appellant’s failure to provide a reporter’s record does not, standing alone,

make her appeal frivolous. See Pantlitz, 2011 WL 5116464, at *5; Mallios v.

Standard Ins. Co., 237 S.W.3d 778, 783 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007,

pet. denied). Further, in the absence of a reporter’s record, we cannot say that Harris

did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the trial court’s judgment should be

reversed. See Pantlitz, 2011 WL 5116464, at *5. We therefore decline to impose

sanctions against Harris. See id. (declining to impose sanctions under Rule 45 where

plaintiff failed to provide reporter’s record and court could not conclude that plaintiff

did not have reasonable grounds to believe trial court’s judgment should be

reversed); Sam Houston Hotel, L.P. v. Mockingbird Rest., Inc., 191 S.W.3d 720, 721

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (concluding plaintiff’s failure to

provide sufficient record for court of appeals to address its issues did not render its

appeal frivolous); In re A.W.P., 200 S.W.3d 242, 245–46 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006,

no pet.) (declining to impose sanctions based on plaintiff’s failure to present

complete record on appeal where court could not conclude appeal was otherwise

frivolous).2

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the county court at law.

2 All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

8 Kristin M. Guiney Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Guiney.