Reverse and Remand and Opinion Filed November 19, 2013
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-12-01126-CV
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Appellant
V.
ERIC A. SCZEPANIK AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-11-08775-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices FitzGerald, Francis, and Myers
Opinion by Justice Francis
In this suit for forcible detainer, CitiMortgage, Inc. appeals the trial court’s take nothing
judgment in favor of Eric A. Sczepanik and all other occupants of 421 Cambridge Drive,
Richardson, Texas. In four issues, CitiMortgage contends the trial court erred by sustaining
Sczepanik’s objections and excluding the trustee’s deed (by substitute trustee) from evidence.
We agree. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Sczepanik purchased the house at 421 Cambridge Drive in Richardson on November 8,
2004. He signed a promissory note for $123,750 and executed a deed of trust. Under the deed of
trust, Sczepanik agreed that if the property were sold at a foreclosure sale, as borrower on the
note, he and any person holding possession of the house through him would “immediately
surrender possession of the Property to the purchaser at that sale.” If he did not surrender
possession, he would become a tenant at sufferance and could be removed by writ of possession
or other court proceeding. When he defaulted on his note, the property was posted for
foreclosure, and CitiMortgage purchased the property. CitiMortgage sent Sczepanik a demand to
vacate the premises and, when he did not do so, filed suit for forcible detainer in justice of the
peace court. After that court awarded judgment in favor of CitiMortgage, Sczepanik appealed to
the county court at law.
On appeal, CitiMortgage offered the trustee’s deed to establish it had the right to
immediate possession of the property. Sczepanik objected to the document on the grounds it was
“hearsay within hearsay.” The trial court sustained the objection and entered a take nothing
judgment in favor of Sczepanik. The trial court did not file findings of fact and conclusions of
law despite CitiMortgage’s request for the same. This appeal followed.
Evidentiary rulings are committed to the trial court’s sound discretion. Bay Area
Healthcare Grp., Ltd. v. McShane, 239 S.W.3d 231, 234 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam). A trial court
abuses its discretion when it acts without regard for any guiding rules or principles. Owens–
Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35, 43 (Tex. 1998).
We recently considered whether the recitals in a trustee’s deed were hearsay within
hearsay subject to exclusion under the hearsay rule. See Mason v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No.
05-12-01590-CV, 2013 WL 5948077, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 5, 2013, no pet. h.) (mem.
op.). Rule of evidence 803(15) provides that statements of document affecting an interest in
property are not excluded by the hearsay rule. TEX. R. EVID. 803(15); see Mason, 2013 WL
5948077, at *2. The trustee’s deed in this case is “a document purporting to establish or affect
an interest in property.” TEX. R. EVID. 803(15).
As was the case in Mason, the issue here is whether the recitals Sczepanik objected to
were “relevant to the purpose of the document.” The purpose of the trustee’s deed was to
–2–
transfer the property following a foreclosure sale, and the recitals in the trustee’s deed, setting
out the facts on which the foreclosure sale was based, were germane to the deed’s purpose. We
therefore conclude that, under rule 803(15), the recitals are “relevant to the purpose of the
document” and are not excluded by the hearsay rule. See Mason, 2013 WL 5948077, at *3.
Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion by sustaining Sczepanik’s hearsay within
hearsay objection to the deed and by excluding the deed.
Having concluded the trial court erred, we must determine whether the error probably
caused the rendition of an improper judgment. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1(a). A forcible detainer
action is a procedure to determine the right to immediate possession of real property where there
was no unlawful entry. Williams v. Bank of New York Mellon, 315 S.W.3d 925, 926 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). It is intended to be a speedy, simple, and inexpensive means to
obtain possession without resort to an action on the title. Scott v. Hewitt, 127 Tex. 31, 35, 90
S.W.2d 816, 818–19 (1936). 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.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 746. Thus, the only issue in a forcible detainer action is
which party has the right to immediate possession of the property. Williams, 315 S.W.3d at 927.
CitiMortgage offered the trustee’s deed to establish it purchased the property at
foreclosure and had a right to immediate possession. The trial court erroneously excluded the
evidence and found in favor of Sczepanik. Under these facts, we conclude the erroneous
exclusion of the deed showing CitiMortgage’s ownership probably caused the rendition of an
improper judgment. We sustain CitiMortgage’s issues.
–3–
We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand this case for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
/Molly Francis/
121126F.P05 MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law
No. 1, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-12-01126-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-11-08775-A.
Opinion delivered by Justice Francis.
ERIC A. SCZEPANIK AND ALL OTHER Justices FitzGerald and Myers participating.
OCCUPANTS, Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
REVERSED and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
It is ORDERED that appellant CITIMORTGAGE, INC. recover its costs of this appeal
from appellee ERIC A. SCZEPANIK AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS.
Judgment entered this 19th day of November, 2013.
/Molly Francis/
MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
–5–