Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Drake Equinox LLC and Drake Shangri-La LLC, doing business as The Drake on Summit, brought a forcible-detainer action against former tenant Gabriel Sanchez in the Precinct Five justice court, where the leased property was located. After the Precinct Five justice of the peace recused himself, the county judge appointed the Precinct Four justice of the peace under Texas Government Code Section 27.055 to hear the matter.
Rather than having the appointed judge sit for the Precinct Five court, the case was transferred to the Precinct Four justice court and assigned a new Precinct Four cause number. That court entered judgment, and the county court at law entered a de novo judgment awarding the landlords possession, $6,871.84 in back rent, and attorney’s fees. Sanchez, who was no longer in possession, argued that the Precinct Four court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that the county court consequently lacked appellate jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Court of Appeals held that the Precinct Four justice court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Texas Property Code Section 24.004(a) places jurisdiction over an eviction suit in the justice court precinct where the real property is located. The landlords conceded that the premises were in Precinct Five, and the record did not indicate that any portion was in Precinct Four.
The court explained that Government Code Section 27.055 authorized the county judge to appoint the Precinct Four justice to serve temporarily in the recused judge’s place, but did not authorize transferring the case to the Precinct Four court’s docket. Government Code Section 74.121 likewise did not permit transfer to a court lacking jurisdiction. Because the justice court lacked jurisdiction, the county court at law acquired none on appeal. The appellate court reversed the county court’s judgment and rendered judgment dismissing the suit.
Key Takeaways
- A Texas forcible-detainer action must be heard by the justice court for the precinct in which the property is located.
- Appointing another justice of the peace to replace a recused judge does not transfer the case or confer jurisdiction on the appointed judge’s own court.
- A county court hearing a de novo eviction appeal has no jurisdiction when the originating justice court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between assigning a substitute judge to sit for the proper court and transferring the underlying case to another precinct’s court. Even when another justice is validly appointed after a recusal, court personnel must preserve the case on the docket of the justice court that has statutory jurisdiction.
The ruling also underscores that a jurisdictional defect at the justice-court level cannot be cured by a de novo appeal to the county court. An eviction judgment entered after an unauthorized inter-precinct transfer is subject to reversal and dismissal.