Opinion
No. 05-17-00733-CV
06-26-2018
NENIDIA GUILLEN ROBLES, Appellant v. RAFAEL RIVERA, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-01445-B
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Brown, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Stoddart
This is an appeal from the county court at law's final judgment in an eviction case. The appeal presents two jurisdictional issues: (1) whether the county court at law had jurisdiction over an appeal from the justice court and (2) whether this Court has jurisdiction over the merits of this appeal under the statute governing appeals in eviction cases. We conclude the county court at law had jurisdiction because the last day to file the appeal fell on Presidents Day, a legal holiday, which extended the time to file the appeal to the next business day. However, we conclude we do not have jurisdiction over appellant's second issue because it raises an issue of possession relating to property that is not used exclusively for residential purposes. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
BACKGROUND
Rafael Rivera (Landlord) filed an eviction suit against Nenidia Guillen Robles (Tenant) in the justice court, alleging she failed to pay rent for several months and refused to vacate the property after the commercial lease terminated. The justice court rendered judgment for Tenant on February 15, 2017. Landlord signed an appeal bond on Monday, February 20, 2017, which was Presidents' Day. The justice of the peace also signed the bond the same day indicating her examination and approval. The file stamp on the bond, however, indicates it was received by the justice court on February 21, 2017.
Following a trial de novo, the county court at law rendered judgment in favor of Landlord for possession of the property, unpaid rent, and attorney's fees. The court also signed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Tenant argues the county court at law did not have jurisdiction to review the justice court decision because the appeal bond was not filed within five days of the judgment and that the evidence at the trial de novo was insufficient to prove Landlord gave proper notice to vacate the property.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the county court at law's judgment must be vacated because that court did not acquire jurisdiction. Although we conclude we do not have jurisdiction over the merits of appellant's appeal, we have jurisdiction to determine whether the lower court had jurisdiction. See Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705, 707-08 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.) (concluding this Court had jurisdiction to determine whether county court at law had subject matter jurisdiction to enter writ of possession). A judgment rendered by a court without subject matter jurisdiction is void. In re United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 307 S.W.3d 299, 309-10 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding). When a party appeals from a void order and the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal, the proper procedure is for the appellate court to declare the order void and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Freedom Commc'ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 623 (Tex. 2012) ("[A]ppellate courts do not have jurisdiction to address the merits of appeals from void orders or judgments; rather, they have jurisdiction only to determine that the order or judgment underlying the appeal is void and make appropriate orders based on that determination."); State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. 1995). Therefore, we address appellant's first issue before discussing our jurisdiction over her second issue.
A. Jurisdiction of County Court at Law
A party may appeal a judgment in an eviction case by filing a bond, making a cash deposit, or filing a sworn statement of inability to pay with the justice court within five days after the judgment is signed. TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.9(a). An appeal of a justice court's ruling is perfected when a bond, cash deposit, or statement of inability to pay is filed in accordance with this rule. TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.9(f). Rule 500.5 applies to the computation of time in eviction cases. TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.2. Rule 500.5 provides:
(a) Computation of Time. To compute a time period in these rules:
(1) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;
(2) count every day, including Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and
(3) include the last day of the period, but
Tex. R. Civ. P. 500.5.(A) if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the time period is extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday; and
(B) if the last day for filing falls on a day during which the court is closed before 5:00 p.m., the time period is extended to the court's next business day.
The justice court's judgment was signed on February 15, 2017, resulting in the appeal bond being due on February 20, 2017, which was Presidents' Day. The appeal bond was filed on February 21, 2017. Therefore, the appeal was not timely unless the extension provided by rule 500.5 applies. This issue requires us to interpret the meaning of rule 500.5.
Rules promulgated by the supreme court have the same force and effect as statutes and are interpreted in the same manner. In re Silver, 540 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding). We review questions of statutory construction de novo. City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621, 625 (Tex. 2008). We give words used in the rules their ordinary meaning unless the text or relevant definitions indicate a different meaning. In re Silver, 540 S.W.3d at 534. We read the rule as a whole and in context, "giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence." In re Office of Atty. Gen., 422 S.W.3d 623, 629 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding). We do not interpret a statute or rule in a manner that renders any part of it meaningless or superfluous. Crosstex Energy Services, L.P. v. Pro Plus, Inc., 430 S.W.3d 384, 390 (Tex. 2014).
Because the last day to perfect the appeal fell on Presidents' Day, we must consider the meaning of "legal holiday" in rule 500.5(a)(3)(A). A "legal holiday" includes only national holidays under government code section 662.003(a) and state holidays under government code section 662.003(b)(1) through (6). TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 662.021. The third Monday in February, "Presidents' Day," is a national holiday and therefore a legal holiday. See id. § 662.003(a)(3). Public offices may be closed on a legal holiday. Id. § 662.022.
Tenant argues the appeal bond was late because the county court at law was open on Presidents' Day 2017 even though that day was a legal holiday. She cites Lowe v. Rivera, 60 S.W.3d 366, 368-69 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.), in support for her position. In Lowe, the Court considered section 16.072 of the civil practice and remedies code, which allows for the extension of the statute of limitations when the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday. See id.; see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 16.072 (providing if last day of limitations falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday, "the period for filing suit is extended to include the next day that the county offices are open for business"). Based on the language of that section and its purpose to give an extension when the last day to file suit falls on a date the court is closed, the Court concluded that extension did not apply when the last day to file fell on Presidents' Day because the courts were actually open on that day. Lowe, 60 S.W.3d at 369 ("Read as a whole, the section clearly addresses the situation that arises when the county's offices are not open for business on the last day of the limitations period.") (emphasis original).
Relying on Lowe, Tenant contends an extension under rule 500.5 is available only if the last day falls on a day when the court is closed. We disagree. The language of section 16.072 and rule 500.5 are different. The rule is more specific than the statute addressed in Lowe. Rule 500.5 provides an extension when the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday and also when the last day falls on a day when the court is closed before 5:00 p.m. If the last day falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, "the time period is extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday." TEX. R. CIV. P. 500.5(a)(3)(A). Whereas, if the last day falls on a day when the court is closed, the time period is extended to the "court's next business day." Id. 500.5(a)(3)(B). Thus, read as a whole, rule 500.5 addresses two different situations: one, when the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, and two, when the last day falls on a day the court is closed before 5:00 p.m. The situation applicable in this case is the first, when the last day falls on a legal holiday. Under the plain meaning of subsection 500.5(a)(3)(A), because the last day fell on Presidents' Day, a legal holiday, the time period was extended to the next day that was not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, which was February 21, 2017.
Limiting the meaning of legal holiday to only days when the court is closed, as argued by appellant, would render the subsection 500.5(a)(3)(A) meaningless because the rule already provides an extension when the last day falls on a day when the court is closed. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 500.5(3)(B); In re Office of Atty. Gen., 422 S.W.3d at 629. Therefore, legal holiday must mean something other than days when the court is closed. Because the last day for filing the appeal bond fell on Presidents' Day 2017, a legal holiday, the time to file the appeal bond was extended to the next day that was not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, which was February 21, 2017, the date the appeal bond was filed. TEX. R. CIV. P. 500.5(a)(3)(A). Accordingly, the county court at law had jurisdiction over the appeal from the justice court. We overrule appellant's first issue.
B. Jurisdiction of this Court
Although not raised by the parties, we must consider our own jurisdiction before deciding appellant's second issue. See Freedom Commc'ns, 372 S.W.3d at 624. Property code section 24.007 states: "A final judgment of a county court in an eviction suit may not be appealed on the issue of possession unless the premises in question are being used for residential purposes only." TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007 (emphasis added). It is undisputed that the property at issue here is a restaurant and is not being used "for residential purposes only."
Appellant's second issue challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's finding that notice to vacate was given more than three days before the eviction suit was filed. See id. § 24.005(a) (requiring three days' written notice to vacate before filing an eviction suit). Because the issue of whether a notice to vacate was timely is one that concerns the issue of possession and the property here is not used for residential purposes only, the final judgment of the county court at law may not be appealed. Id. § 24.007. "The prohibition against considering possession includes consideration of any finding 'essential to the issue of,' 'dependent on,' or 'primarily concerned with the issue of' possession." Praise Deliverance Church v. Jelinis, LLC, 536 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (quoting Hong Kong Dev., Inc. v. Nguyen, 229 S.W.3d 415, 431-32 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.)). Accordingly, we do not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider appellant's second issue. See Elwell v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 267 S.W.3d 566, 569 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (dismissing issue concerning sufficiency of evidence of ownership in eviction case involving commercial property).
CONCLUSION
We conclude the appeal bond was timely filed and perfected the appeal to the county court at law. Therefore, that court had jurisdiction to render its judgment and we overrule Tenant's first issue. However, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Tenant's second issue challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the trial court's judgment. See id.
/Craig Stoddart/
CRAIG STODDART
JUSTICE 170733F.P05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-01445-B.
Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Justices Francis and Brown participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee RAFAEL RIVERA recover the full amount of the trial court's judgment and his costs of this appeal from appellant NENIDIA GUILLEN ROBLES and from any supersedeas bond or cash deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond. After the judgment and all costs have been paid, we direct the clerk of the trial court to release the balance, if any, of any cash deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond to the person who made the deposit. Judgment entered this 26th day of June, 2018.