Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mark Thomas Cave leased an apartment from Kensington beginning in December 2022 at a monthly rent of $880. Kensington presented evidence that Cave paid rent only for December 2022 and failed to pay thereafter. It delivered a notice to vacate on December 12, 2023, and filed a forcible-detainer action in justice court on January 11, 2024.
After the justice court ruled for Kensington, Cave appealed to the county court at law for a trial de novo. A jury found that Cave breached the lease, that Kensington was entitled to possession, and that Cave owed $15,751.91 in rent. It also awarded Kensington $14,865 in attorney’s fees through trial and $11,500 in contingent post-trial and appellate fees. Cave challenged the notice under the CARES Act and argued that discrepancies in Kensington’s name deprived it of standing.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Court of Appeals affirmed. Assuming without deciding that the CARES Act’s 30-day notice requirement remains in effect, the court held that Kensington complied because it delivered the notice on December 12, 2023, and filed suit 30 days later, on January 11, 2024. Cave’s separate argument that filing earlier in the day on January 11 was premature was unpreserved and, in any event, unsupported by evidence of harm.
The court held that Cave failed to preserve his complaints that the notice omitted information allegedly required by the CARES Act and misstated the amount owed. It also rejected his standing challenge, concluding that the variations in Kensington’s name were correctable misnomers. The amended petition and final judgment identified the proper entity, and nothing showed that the naming errors misled or disadvantaged Cave.
Key Takeaways
- The court assumed without deciding that the CARES Act’s 30-day eviction-notice requirement remains effective and held that filing suit 30 days after delivery satisfied it.
- Objections to the contents or accuracy of an eviction notice must be raised in the trial court to be preserved for appellate review.
- A plaintiff’s naming error does not defeat standing when the correct party brought the claim, the error is corrected, and the record shows no resulting confusion or prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the CARES Act’s notice period to the time between delivery of the notice to vacate and the filing of the eviction action, while leaving unresolved whether that federal requirement continues to govern covered dwellings. The court noted that no Texas court had previously addressed the provision’s continuing applicability.
The opinion also confirms that clerical variations in a landlord’s legal name generally will be treated as misnomers rather than jurisdictional defects when the record clearly identifies the proper party and the tenant was neither misled nor disadvantaged.