CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. NO. 02-13-00211-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2014

Amy Murry v. Bank of America, N.A.

Amy Murry appealed a county court's judgment in favor of Bank of America, N.A., in a forcible detainer action in the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth. Murry challenged the judgment based on a "notice of rescission" she filed, arguing it nullified the deed of trust and deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction over a title dispute. She also claimed she was improperly denied a jury trial and that her exhibits were wrongly excluded. The appellate court affirmed the county court's judgment, holding that a forcible detainer action is limited to immediate possession and does not adjudicate title disputes, thus Murry's rescission arguments were irrelevant to the action. The court further found no reversible error regarding the jury trial or evidence exclusion, concluding that Bank of America had met its burden in the forcible detainer action.

Forcible DetainerForeclosureDeed of TrustNotice of RescissionJurisdiction DisputeTitle DisputeLandlord-Tenant RelationshipJury Trial RightAppellate ReviewEvidence Admissibility
References
11
Case No. 02-13-00303-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2014

Olga Murry v. Bank of America, N.A.

Olga Murry, representing herself, appealed a county court's judgment in a forcible detainer case initiated by Bank of America, N.A. Murry argued that the trial court erred by excluding her evidence (a release of lien), adopting Bank of America's proposed findings of fact, and rendering judgment against her. The Bank asserted it purchased the property at a foreclosure sale. The appellate court found Murry's arguments lacked merit, particularly noting that the release of lien was irrelevant to the forcible detainer action, which focuses solely on the right to possession and not title defects. The court also addressed Murry's inadequately briefed arguments regarding capacity to sue and challenges to opposing counsel's authority, ultimately affirming the trial court's judgment.

Forcible DetainerForeclosure SaleProperty PossessionAppellate ReviewExclusion of EvidencePro Se LitigationCivil Procedure RulesTrial Court DiscretionJudicial EthicsStanding to Sue
References
8
Case No. 13-14-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Laredo National Bank D/B/A as BBVA Compass Bank v. Myrna Elizabeth De Luna Morales

This case involves an interlocutory appeal of a district court's order denying a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. The temporary injunction was issued to prevent Appellant Laredo National Bank d/b/a BBVA Compass Bank from proceeding with a forcible detainer action against Appellee Myrna Elizabeth de Luna Morales. Morales initiated the original lawsuit, alleging an illegal foreclosure sale of her property due to the bank's lack of authority, failure to provide proper notice, and denial of her right to cure the default. The district court consistently sided with Morales, denying the bank's motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, and to dissolve the temporary injunction. Morales argues that the justice court lacks jurisdiction over the forcible detainer action due to complex title disputes and that the potential loss of her home constitutes irreparable harm.

Interlocutory AppealTemporary InjunctionForeclosureForcible DetainerJustice Court JurisdictionTitle DisputeIrreparable InjuryAbuse of DiscretionMootness DoctrineAdvisory Opinion
References
45
Case No. 05-11-00024-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2013

Flack-Batie, Elizabeth A. and Lisa A. Batie v. Cimarron, Camden

This is an appeal concerning a forcible detainer suit. Appellants Elizabeth A. Flack-Batie and Lisa A. Batie appealed a default judgment granted in favor of appellee Camden Cimarron, arguing they never received notice of the county court trial setting. The appellate court found that the appellants did establish lack of notice, satisfying the first element of the Craddock test for setting aside a default judgment. Consequently, the court reversed the portion of the judgment awarding rent, attorney's fees, interest, and costs, remanding these issues for further proceedings. The part of the appeal related to possession of the leased premises was declared moot as the appellants had already moved out.

Forcible DetainerDefault JudgmentNotice of TrialDue ProcessAppellate ProcedureMotion for New TrialCraddock TestMootnessUnpaid RentAttorney's Fees
References
26
Case No. 01-07-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2008

Bonita B. Ford v. US Bank National Association, as Trustee

Bonita Brown Ford appealed a forcible detainer judgment favoring US Bank National Association, Trustee, concerning property at 3303 Shiro Drive, Houston, Texas. Ford argued that the county court lacked jurisdiction due to a title dispute intertwined with the possession issue and that her due process rights were violated when her motion for a continuance to obtain legal counsel was denied. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the justice and county courts had jurisdiction because possession rights could be determined without resolving the ultimate issue of title, as a landlord-tenant relationship was established through the deed of trust. The court also found that Ford did not preserve her due process issue for appeal.

Forcible detainerJurisdictionTitle disputePossessionDue processContinuanceForeclosureDeed of trustTenant at sufferanceAppellate procedure
References
15
Case No. 13-07-00277-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2008

Corpus Christi Housing Authority v. Maria Lara

The Corpus Christi Housing Authority appealed the dismissal of its forcible detainer action against tenant Maria Lara. The housing authority terminated Lara's lease due to alleged criminal activity. The trial court dismissed the action, ruling that the housing authority's notice of lease termination was defective as it failed to specify the judicial eviction procedure and the type of criminal activity, as mandated by federal regulations, and that this defect deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, finding that while the notice was indeed deficient, such defects are not jurisdictional and should lead to abatement of the action to allow the housing authority to cure the notice, rather than outright dismissal. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Forcible DetainerLease TerminationHousing AuthorityFederal RegulationsDue ProcessNotice RequirementsJurisdictionAbatementReversalRemand
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corpus Christi Housing Authority v. Lara

The Corpus Christi Housing Authority appealed the dismissal of its forcible detainer action against tenant Maria Lara. Lara's lease was terminated due to alleged criminal activity, and the housing authority obtained an eviction judgment from a justice court. The county court, however, dismissed the case, finding the housing authority's termination notice defective under federal regulations. On appeal, the housing authority contended the notice was adequate or that Lara had actual knowledge of the lease termination. The appellate court determined that while the notice was indeed defective, such deficiencies were not jurisdictional and the trial court erred by dismissing the action rather than abating it for proper notice. The case was reversed and remanded with instructions to abate the underlying action until sufficient notice is provided.

Forcible DetainerLease TerminationPublic Housing AuthorityFederal RegulationsDue ProcessNotice RequirementsSubject-Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewReversal and RemandAbatement
References
28
Case No. 13-24-00182-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2025

Raul Toledo v. Martha's Vineyard Mobile Home Park

Raul Toledo, acting pro se, appealed a county court’s judgment in favor of Martha’s Vineyard Mobile Home Park in a forcible-detainer action. Toledo failed to appear in both the justice court and the county court, leading to default judgments for possession of the premises. On appeal, Toledo challenged the eviction, stating he had corrected all issues related to the case. The Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals, Corpus Christi – Edinburg, found Toledo's sole issue to be inadequately briefed, lacking cogent arguments, legal authority, or record references. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the county court's judgment, emphasizing that pro se litigants must still adhere to appellate rules.

forcible detainerevictionpro se litigantinadequate briefingappellate procedureTexas Court of AppealsNueces Countydefault judgmentpossession of propertyappellate rules
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnes v. STONE WAY LTD. PARTNERSHIP

Sheila Barnes appealed a default judgment in a forcible detainer action filed by Stone Way Limited Partnership. Barnes, suffering from multiple sclerosis, failed to appear at trial due to hospitalization, leading to the default judgment. The appellate court applied the Craddock test, which requires a defaulting party to prove their failure to appear was not intentional, that they have a meritorious defense, and that a new trial would not injure the plaintiff. The court found Barnes met all elements, demonstrating her absence was justified by medical reasons and she presented valid defenses regarding lease violations and landlord retaliation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, concluding the trial court abused its discretion by denying Barnes's motion for a new trial.

Default judgmentForcible detainerMultiple sclerosisContinuanceMeritorious defenseNew trialCraddock testAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewTexas Property Code
References
10
Case No. 01-15-00663-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2015

Devon Wilmington v. Bay Area Utilities, LLC

Devon Wilmington (Appellant) filed a Petition for Writ of Supersedeas and Motion for Temporary Stay of Execution of Judgment to halt the enforcement of a July 27, 2015 judgment from County Court 3, presided over by Judge Wooldridge. The judgment was in favor of Bay Area Utilities, LLC, awarding them $37,020.00 in damages and possession of property in a forcible detainer case. Wilmington argues that a stay is crucial to prevent irreparable harm and safeguard her right to a meaningful appeal, citing her negative net worth and inability to post the $15,000 supersedeas bond set by Judge Linda Storey. She invokes Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 52.006 and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 to advocate for a reduction or waiver of the bond due to her financial hardship.

AppealSupersedeas BondStay of ExecutionForcible DetainerIndigencyNet WorthAppellate ProcedureTexas LawCivil ProcedureJudgment Enforcement
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 59 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational