Rice v. Pinney
Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001)
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District (Dallas)
- Decided
- 2001-03-20
- Docket
- 05-00-00126-CV
- Cited by later opinions
- 388
What happened
After a foreclosure, the buyer sued the Rices for possession in justice court while their wrongful-foreclosure suit was pending in district court. They argued the eviction court had no power to act.
What the court decided
The court of appeals held that the eviction case may go forward at the same time: the only issue in a forcible detainer is the right to actual possession, and title is decided in the separate district-court suit. The eviction court lacks jurisdiction only when possession cannot be decided without deciding title.
In the court's words
“the only issue shall be as to the right to actual possession; and the merits of the title shall not be adjudicated”
Why it may matter to you
At an eviction hearing, arguments about the foreclosure itself usually belong in district court. Know this so you can prepare the right points for the justice court — and ask about time to move and appeal bonds.
Why it might not apply
If there is no landlord-tenant clause in your deed of trust, or title is truly intertwined with possession, the result can differ.
Most useful when
- You were sued for eviction (forcible detainer) after a foreclosure sale
- You have a wrongful-foreclosure suit pending in district court
How to cite it
The full citation for the first time you mention it, a short form for later, and a sample sentence you can adapt.
Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001)Short formRice, 51 S.W.3d 705Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.
In Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001), the court held that an eviction after foreclosure may proceed while a wrongful-foreclosure suit is pending, because the eviction court decides only the right to immediate possession and not title. Here, [say in one sentence what happened in your case]
Ask Techy about this case
Techy explains the case in plain words, why it may matter to you, its limits, and how to prepare. It only uses this case record.
Related cases
- Homeowner wonBinding
Ogden v. Gibraltar Savings Ass'n
640 S.W.2d 232 · Decided 1982
Mr. Ogden owned a house in Corpus Christi. After he fell behind, the savings association posted a trustee's sale and sold the house. He sued for wrongful foreclosure and lost in the lower courts.
Read the case - Homeowner lostBinding
University Savings Ass'n v. Springwoods Shopping Center
644 S.W.2d 705 · Decided 1982
A substitute trustee conducted the foreclosure sale, but his appointment had not been recorded. The owner sued for wrongful foreclosure.
Read the case - Homeowner wonAppeals court in your state
Sauceda v. GMAC Mortgage Corp.
268 S.W.3d 135 · Decided 2008
The Saucedas fell behind on their Robstown home loan while, they said, they were working with the servicer in a "home retention program." The house was sold at foreclosure for about $88,800. They sued for wrongful foreclosure and the trial court threw the case out before trial.
Read the case