COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00312-CV
JAMES ALLEN MCGUIRE APPELLANT
V.
FANNIE MAE A/K/A FEDERAL APPELLEE
NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION
----------
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
James Allen McGuire, pro se, appeals the county court‘s award of
possession of 902 Rusk Drive, Euless, Texas to Fannie Mae a/k/a Federal
National Mortgage Association. We will affirm the county court‘s judgment.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Background Facts
In 1995, McGuire purchased the Rusk Drive residence and executed a
deed of trust encumbering the property in favor of First Preference Mortgage.
When McGuire failed to make his mortgage payments, First Preference‘s
successor-in-interest Wells Fargo sold the property to Fannie Mae at a
nonjudicial foreclosure sale. Fannie Mae then filed a petition for forcible detainer
in the justice of the peace court. A trial was held and the court rendered
judgment in favor of Fannie Mae.
McGuire appealed to the county court, which tried the case de novo. See
Tex. R. Civ. P. 749, 751. At trial, Fannie Mae submitted the deed of trust, the
substitute trustee‘s deed showing that Fannie Mae acquired the property at a
foreclosure sale on April 5, 2011, and the notice to McGuire to vacate. McGuire
objected to the substitute trustee‘s deed on the grounds that Fannie Mae had not
perfected its chain of title and that he was concurrently contesting legal title in a
separate action in our court. The county court admitted the substitute trustee‘s
deed over McGuire‘s objection. The county court then rendered judgment in
favor of Fannie Mae. McGuire now appeals to this court.
Forcible Detainer
In a forcible detainer action, the only issue the trial court determines is
whether the party seeking to obtain possession is entitled to actual and
immediate possession, and the merits of whether a party has title shall not be
determined. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 746; Black v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 318 S.W.3d
2
414, 416 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. dism‘d w.o.j.); Williams v.
Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 315 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.).
Thus, questions over whether a sale of property encumbered by a deed of trust is
invalid ―must be brought in a separate suit.‖ Williams, 315 S.W.3d at 927; Rice v.
Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705, 710 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.). ―To prevail in a
forcible detainer action, a plaintiff is not required to prove title, but is only required
to show sufficient evidence of ownership to demonstrate a superior right to
immediate possession.‖ Rice, 51 S.W.3d at 709. A court may determine which
party has a superior right to possession without determining title when a landlord-
tenant relationship exists between the parties. Id. at 712. The existence of the
landlord-tenant relationship provides a basis for determining the right to
possession without resolving the issue of who owns the property. See Salaymeh
v. Plaza Centro, LLC, 264 S.W.3d 431, 436 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2008, no pet.) (stating that in a forcible detainer action, a landlord-tenant
relationship presents ―an independent basis on which the trial court [can]
determine the right to immediate possession without resolving underlying title
issues‖); Brown v. Kula-Amos, Inc., No. 02-04-00032-CV, 2005 WL 675563, at *3
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting that a forcible detainer
action based on contract for deed depends upon landlord-tenant relationship and
that contract for deed may provide for party to become tenant at sufferance upon
default).
3
Discussion
On appeal, McGuire argues that the county court was without jurisdiction
to hear the case for two reasons. First, McGuire claims that Fannie Mae does
not have standing because the substitute trustee‘s deed is ―ineligible and
unlawful.‖ He argues that the deed of trust ―clearly shows that [he] was the
equitable owner of title,‖ and because he did not convey title to Fannie Mae,
Fannie Mae‘s substitute trustee‘s deed ―should be considered a ‗wild deed‘
without force.‖
The deed of trust that Fannie Mae submitted at trial shows that McGuire
granted First Preference a lien on the property to secure payment of a note and
includes a provision that if McGuire defaulted on the note and the property was
sold at a foreclosure sale, McGuire would become a tenant at sufferance. This
kind of provision in a deed of trust is generally sufficient to establish a landlord-
tenant relationship between the mortgagor and the purchaser of the property at a
foreclosure sale. See Scott v. Hewitt, 127 Tex. 31, 90 S.W.2d 816, 818 (1936).
As stated above, such a relationship provides a basis for determining the right to
possession without resolving the issue of who owns the property. See
Salaymeh, 264 S.W.3d at 436.
Fannie Mae submitted a substitute trustee‘s deed showing that it
purchased the property from First Preference‘s successor-in-interest Wells Fargo
at a foreclosure sale on April 5, 2011. Fannie Mae‘s status as grantee under the
substitute trustee‘s deed is sufficient to confer standing on Fannie Mae to assert
4
a forcible detainer action regarding the property. See Morris v. Am. Home Mortg.
Servicing, Inc., No. 01-09-00768-CV, 2011 WL 1631762, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 28, 2011, no pet.) (overruling appellant‘s standing
argument when appellee demonstrated a landlord-tenant relationship through
substitute trustee‘s deed). The landlord-tenant relationship between Fannie Mae
and McGuire, established by the substitute trustee‘s deed, provided the basis for
the trial court‘s finding of Fannie Mae‘s superior right to possession. See id.;
Shutter v. Wells Fargo Bank, 318 S.W.3d 467, 471 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet.
dism‘d w.o.j.) (op. on reh‘g) (holding that the bank demonstrated its right to
possession of property because tenant-at-sufferance relationship existed).
Second, McGuire argues that he was contesting legal title in a separate
action and until title was resolved, the trial court could not award possession.
The existence of a title dispute will not deprive a justice court of jurisdiction in a
forcible detainer action unless the right to possession cannot be determined
without resolving the title issue. Rice, 51 S.W.3d at 713. Thus, McGuire was
required to demonstrate that the title dispute prevented the county court from
determining right to possession, depriving it of jurisdiction over the action. See
Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys. v. Young, No. 02-08-00088-CV, 2009 WL
1564994, at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 4, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.)
(holding that the county court did not have jurisdiction over a forcible detainer
action when defendant properly disputed title by submitting deeds showing that
5
plaintiff had conveyed ownership of the property to another party after acquiring it
at the foreclosure sale).
McGuire argues that documents attached to his reply brief on appeal
demonstrate that Wells Fargo had previously assigned the deed of trust to
another party and thus, could not have later assigned it to Fannie Mae.
McGuire‘s argument challenges the validity of title. Fannie Mae was not required
to demonstrate valid title in order to demonstrate superior right of possession.
Rice, 51 S.W.3d at 709. As stated above, Fannie Mae established superior right
of possession through its submission of the deed of trust, the substitute trustee‘s
deed, and the notice to McGuire to vacate. Further, the other action McGuire
references was a challenge to the assignment of the lien from First Preference to
Wells Fargo. See In re A Purported Lien or Claim Against James McGuire, No.
02-11-00140-CV, 2012 WL 254066, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 26, 2012,
no pet. h.) (mem. op.).2 McGuire‘s attempt to dispute title is unlike the
defendant‘s attempt in Young because in Young, the defendant presented
evidence of a conveyance after the plaintiff had purchased the property, thereby
demonstrating that the plaintiff no longer had an interest in the property. See
Young, 2009 WL 1564994, at *3–5. McGuire challenges a conveyance that
2
McGuire challenged the validity of the assignment under government
code section 51.903. See Tex. Gov. Code Ann. § 51.903 (West. Supp. 2011).
We held that section 51.903 does not apply to assignments and, thus, McGuire
could not rely on it to challenge the assignment. McGuire, 2012 WL 254066, at
*1.
6
occurred before Fannie Mae purchased the property. McGuire does not dispute
that Fannie Mae purchased the property or that Fannie Mae has retained its
alleged interest in the property; he disputes, in essence, only whether the seller
had the authority to sell the property to Fannie Mae in the first place. To the
extent that McGuire complains of defects in the foreclosure process, he may
pursue that complaint in district court, but it may not be considered in this action.
See Shutter, 318 S.W.3d at 471; Williams, 315 S.W.3d at 927 (citing Scott, 127
Tex. at 35, 90 S.W.2d at 818–19).
We hold that the county court was able to determine Fannie Mae‘s right to
immediate possession of the property at trial, and it did not err in granting
possession of the property to Fannie Mae. We overrule McGuire‘s issues.
Conclusion
Having overruled all of McGuire‘s issues, we affirm the county court‘s
judgment. Because we affirm the county court‘s judgment, we deny Fannie
Mae‘s motion to strike appellant‘s response brief as moot.
LEE GABRIEL
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GARDNER and GABRIEL, JJ.
DELIVERED: March 22, 2012
7