Opinion issued June 9, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-15-00114-CV
———————————
CHRISTINA LIVINGSTON, Appellant
V.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION FANNIE MAE,
Appellee
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1055552
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING
Christina Livingston appeals from the county civil court at law’s judgment in
favor of Federal National Mortgage Association Fannie Mae. We affirm.
We grant rehearing, withdraw our opinion and judgment dated September 25,
2015, and issue this opinion in its place.
Background
Fannie Mae filed a forcible detainer action in justice court against Livingston
and other occupants of a property that Fannie Mae had purchased in foreclosure. The
justice court rendered a judgment granting Fannie Mae possession of the property.
Livingston appealed to the county court, which also rendered a judgment in Fannie
Mae’s favor. Livingston timely appealed from its judgment to this court, but we
dismissed her appeal for want of prosecution after she failed to timely file her brief.
Livingston then filed a motion for rehearing accompanied by her appellate brief. We
granted rehearing, withdrew our judgment of dismissal, and reinstated her appeal.
Both parties have filed their briefs, and this appeal is now ripe for decision.
On appeal, Livingston requests that this court:
(1) hold unconstitutional Section 24.004 of the Texas Property Code,
which confers jurisdiction in forcible detainer actions on justice courts, or otherwise
hold that justice courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction over these actions;
(2) hold that justice courts lack such jurisdiction whenever a defendant in
a forcible detainer action has designated the disputed property as her homestead and
has filed a suit contesting title to the property in the district court; and
(3) hold unconstitutional deed-of-trust provisions that reduce borrowers to
the status of tenants at sufferance in the event of foreclosure after default on the notes
made in connection with a mortgage loan.
2
Sosa v. Garcia Controls
Though he makes no mention of it in his briefing in this appeal, Livingston’s
counsel unsuccessfully asserted the same positions in another recent appeal before
this court. See Sosa v. Garcia, No. 01-13-01033-CV, 2015 WL 545529, at *1–4
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 10, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming trial
court’s judgment in forcible detainer action). In Sosa, counsel framed these positions
as five issues and characterized them somewhat differently. But comparison of the
briefs filed in Sosa and this appeal show the summary of argument and argument are
the same. Having failed to disclose Sosa as adverse binding authority, Livingston’s
counsel has neither distinguished it nor argued for its modification or reversal.
Consistent with our decision in Sosa, we overrule Livingston’s issues.
Conclusion
We affirm the county civil court at law’s judgment.
Harvey Brown
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Huddle.
3