Robert M. Markham and All Other Occupants v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Argent Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W5

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 14, 2011
Docket13-09-00633-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Robert M. Markham and All Other Occupants v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Argent Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W5 (Robert M. Markham and All Other Occupants v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Argent Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W5) 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
Robert M. Markham and All Other Occupants v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Argent Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W5, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

NUMBER 13-09-00633-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI—EDINBURG

robert M. markham and

all other occupants,                                                                  Appellants,

v.

deutsche bank national trust

company, as trustee, in trust for

the registered holders of argent

securities inc., asset-backed

pass-through certificates, series 2006-w5,          Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Hidalgo County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Vela, and Perkes  

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes 

            Appellant, Robert M. Markham,[1] appeals the trial court’s summary judgment granting a forcible detainer in favor of appellee, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Argent Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W5 (hereinafter “Deutsche Bank”).  Because the justice court and county court at law lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.

I.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Deutsche Bank filed a forcible-detainer petition against Markham in the Court of the Justice of the Peace, Precinct Three, Place Two, of Hidalgo County, Texas, seeking to evict Markham from the property located at 307 Highland Drive, McAllen, Texas 78501 (“the property”).  After a jury trial, the justice court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict in favor of Deutsche Bank.  Markham appealed de novo to the county court at law, which granted a summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank.  Markham thereafter filed a motion to set aside the county court’s judgment and to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the justice court lacked jurisdiction over the case because the property is not located within the geographical boundaries of Justice of the Peace Precinct Three of Hidalgo County, Texas.  Markham argued that because the justice court lacked jurisdiction, the county court lacked jurisdiction.  The county court denied Markham’s motion and this appeal followed.[2]     

II.  ISSUES PRESENTED

            Markham presents two issues for review:

(1)    Did the justice court lack jurisdiction to award Deutsche Bank relief in its forcible-detainer action when the property at issue was not located within the precinct of the justice court?

(2)    Did the justice court’s lack of jurisdiction deprive the county court of jurisdiction when the justice court’s judgment was appealed de novo to the county court?

III.  STANDARD OF REVIEW AND DISCUSSION

Subject matter jurisdiction is an issue of law which we review de novo.  Singleton v. Casteel, 267 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied).  Subject matter jurisdiction is never presumed and cannot be waived.  Ward v. Malone, 115 S.W.3d 267, 269 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, pet. denied).  Jurisdiction over forcible-detainer actions is expressly given to the justice court of the precinct where the property is located and, on appeal, to the county court for a trial de novo.  See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 24.004 (West 2000); Ward, 115 S.W.3d at 269; Goggins v. Leo, 849 S.W.2d 373, 375 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ); Tanner v. Axelrad, 680 S.W.2d 851, 852 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ dism’d).  The appellate jurisdiction of a statutory county court is confined to the jurisdictional limits of the justice court, and the county court has no jurisdiction over an appeal unless the justice court had jurisdiction.  Ward, 115 S.W.3d at 269; Goggins, 849 S.W.2d at 375.

Deutsche Bank neither alleged nor proved that the property is located within the geographical boundaries of Justice of the Peace Precinct Three of Hidalgo County, Texas.  Markham’s motion to set aside the county court’s judgment and to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction includes a copy of a Hidalgo County road map and a precinct map.  Markham’s exhibit, however, is not authenticated and does not clearly show the relevant Hidalgo County precinct boundaries.   

An appellate court may take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact sua sponteSee Tex. R. Evid. 201(f); In re Baylor Medical Center at Garland, 280 S.W.3d 227, 229 n.6 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (taking judicial notice sua sponte that trial judge had been replaced by election during pendency of mandamus case); Martinez v. City of San Antonio, 768 S.W.2d 911, 914 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1989, no writ) (discussing appellate court’s discretion to take judicial notice under Rule 201(f) and taking judicial notice on party’s request to avoid unjust judgment); see also O’Quinn v. Hall, 77 S.W.3d 438, 477 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.) (discussing nature of “adjudicative facts”).  The judicially noticed fact must not be subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either: (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.  Tex. R. Evid. 201(b).  It is particularly appropriate for an appellate court to take judicial notice of a fact that pertains to a question of subject-matter jurisdiction, rather than the merits of a dispute. 

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

Related

O. B. Harper D-B-A Harper Electric Co. v. Killion
348 S.W.2d 521 (Texas Supreme Court, 1961)
Goggins v. Leo
849 S.W.2d 373 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
City of Dallas v. Moreau
718 S.W.2d 776 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Martinez v. City of San Antonio
768 S.W.2d 911 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Singleton v. Casteel
267 S.W.3d 547 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Ward v. Malone
115 S.W.3d 267 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
O'QUINN v. Hall
77 S.W.3d 438 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
City of Glenn Heights v. Sheffield Development Co.
55 S.W.3d 158 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Tanner v. Axelrad
680 S.W.2d 851 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
In re Baylor Medical Center at Garland
280 S.W.3d 227 (Texas Supreme Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Robert M. Markham and All Other Occupants v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Argent Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-m-markham-and-all-other-occupants-v-deutsche-bank-national-trust-texapp-2011.