Background
Janet Moy filed a forcible detainer action concerning property on Culebra Road in San Antonio. The justice court awarded Moy possession, and Dalila AGiza, representing herself, appealed to the county court for a trial de novo. While that appeal was pending, the county court ordered a writ of possession and awarded Moy $800 in attorney’s fees after AGiza failed to appear at a hearing concerning unpaid rent deposits.
AGiza also failed to appear for the July 17, 2025 trial on the merits. That day, she filed a special appearance and notice of appeal asserting that the justice court lacked jurisdiction and that her appeal automatically stayed the county court proceedings. On August 18, the county court entered final judgment awarding Moy possession, $17,600 in rent, costs, and post-judgment interest.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that AGiza did not establish that the justice court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction: the record contained no evidence that the property was outside the justice court’s precinct, and her contention that she was not the proper defendant concerned the merits rather than jurisdiction. She also failed to preserve her personal-jurisdiction objection because she declined to attend the county court hearing on her special appearance and never obtained a ruling.
The court further held that AGiza did not demonstrate reversible error based on allegedly inadequate trial notice. The record contained a certificate stating that the July 17 setting was served on July 11, while AGiza supplied no record evidence supporting her contrary account and did not seek a ruling or other relief from the county court. Her premature notice of appeal neither divested that court of jurisdiction nor stayed the case, and enforcement required a supersedeas bond despite her claimed indigence.
Finally, supplementation cured the asserted deficiencies in the clerk’s record. Because no reporter’s record of the July 17 trial was provided, the appellate court presumed the evidence supported the judgment. AGiza also failed to show that Judge Lisa Jarrett’s earlier participation, without an assignment order appearing in the appellate record, rendered the final judgment void or caused reversible error.
Key Takeaways
- An unsupported assertion that an eviction was filed in the wrong justice-court precinct does not establish a jurisdictional defect.
- A party must obtain a ruling on a special appearance and ordinarily must present a trial-notice complaint to the trial court to preserve those issues for appeal.
- A premature appeal from a nonfinal writ-of-possession order does not halt the county court’s de novo eviction proceeding, and a notice of appeal alone does not supersede the final judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the preservation and record requirements governing expedited Texas eviction appeals. Even jurisdictional and due-process arguments must be supported by the record, and personal-jurisdiction objections require a trial-court ruling.
It also clarifies that an interlocutory possession order does not terminate the county court’s authority to reach final judgment and that suspending enforcement of an eviction judgment requires compliance with the statutory supersedeas-bond requirement.