tenancy-at-sufferance clause in Texas

2025A tenancy-at-sufferance clause separates the issue of possession from the issue of title because “a foreclosure sale transforms the borrower into a tenant at sufferance who must immediately relinquish possession to the foreclosure- sale purchaser.” Pinnacle Premier Props., Inc. v. Breton, 447 S.W.3d 558, 564 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.).

2024Because tenancy at sufferance clauses separate the issue of possession from the issue of title, Pinnacle Premier Props., 447 S.W.3d at 564 , a forcible detainer action may proceed based on a tenancy at sufferance clause in a deed of trust, regardless of whether the plaintiff in the action complied with the terms of the deed of trust in the foreclosure process.

2022But Yarbrough also states that “a deed of trust may include a tenancy-at- sufferance clause that creates a landlord–tenant relationship when the property is foreclosed.” Id.

2018The better course would be to conclude that the occupants’ allegations do not show intertwining of title and possession issues because the occupants have not alleged or proved that the purchaser at the foreclosure sale would be unable to enforce the terms of the original note and deed of trust, including the tenancy-at- sufferance clause. 1 455 S.W.3d 277, 283 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.). 2 Factual and procedural background Appellee Bruce Hiran signed a Texas Home Equity Note payable to Long Beach Mortgage Company.

2015Registration Sys., Inc. v. Knight, No. 09-04-00452-CV, 2006 WL 510338 , at *3-4 & n. 4 (Tex.App.-Beaumont Mar. 2, 2006, no pet.) (mem.op.) (rendering judgment in favor of the lender because there was undisputed evidence that the defendants signed a deed of trust with a tenancy-at-sufferance clause); Villalon v. Bank One, 176 S.W.3d 66, 68-71 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (no intertwined title issue when the defendant alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; the defendant "stipulated” that he financed the purchase of the property with a promissory note sec

2013See, e.g., Dormady, 61 S.W.3d at 558 ; Rice, 51 S.W.3d at 711–12.

2015See, e.g., Dormady, 61 S.W.3d at 557–58; Rice, 51 S.W.3d at 711–12.

2015Registration Sys., Inc. v. Knight, No. 09-04-00452-CV, 2006 WL 510338 , at *3-4 & n. 4 (Tex.App.-Beaumont Mar. 2, 2006, no pet.) (mem.op.) (rendering judgment in favor of the lender because there was undisputed evidence that the defendants signed a deed of trust with a tenancy-at-sufferance clause); Villalon v. Bank One, 176 S.W.3d 66, 68-71 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (no intertwined title issue when the defendant alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; the defendant "stipulated” that he financed the purchase of the property with a promissory note sec

2023See, e.g., Jelinis, LLC, 557 S.W.3d at 167 (“In essence, a tenancy-at-sufferance clause creates a landlord-tenant relationship when the property is foreclosed”).

2022“A title dispute ‘based entirely on [the] contention that the foreclosure was improper” is not intertwined with the right of immediate possession.” Guillen v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 494 S.W.3d 861, 867 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (quoting Pinnacle Premier Props., Inc. v. Breton, 447 S.W.3d 558, 564 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.)).

2018Code Ann. § 24.002 ; Reynoso, 541 S.W.3d at 337 . 5 Jelinis’s ability to prove a superior right to possession as well as Jelinis’s title to the premises.11 Embracing the Sixth Court of Appeals’s opinion in Wade v. Household Finance Corp. III,12 the majority concludes that Hiran and Yi have not shown the issues of possession and title are intertwined because they neither dispute signing a deed of trust nor dispute that the deed of trust they signed contained a tenancy-at- sufferance clause.13 In adopting the Wade rationale, the majority effectively enforces a portion of an allegedly fraudulent

2018Code Ann. § 24.002 ; Reynoso, 541 S.W.3d at 337 . 12 No. 06-15-00074-CV, 2016 WL 741872 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Feb. 25, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) 13 See ante at 15–16. 14 See id. 15 Wade, 2016 WL 741872 , at *5. 16 See id. 17 See id. at *7. 6 make void the deed of trust containing the tenancy-at-sufferance clause, the issue of title is intertwined with the issue of possession.18 In Yarbrough, the occupants asserted that the deed of trust was forged, which, if true, would have made the deed of trust and its tenancy-at-sufferance clause void ab initio.19 The Wade court and the majority seize on la

2017Code Ann. § 24.002 (a)(2) (West 2014) (providing that a person who refuses to surrender possession of real property on demand commits a forcible detainer if he “is a tenant at will or by sufferance, including an occupant at the time of foreclosure of a lien superior to the tenant’s lease”); Dyhre v. Hinman, No. 05-16-00511-CV, 2017 WL 1075614 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 22, 2017, pet. filed) (mem. op.) (holding that the transfer from the deed of trust trustee to the new buyer, which transferred all deed of trust rights, including the tenancy-at- sufferance rights, to the new buyer, “was suf

2015Registration Sys., Inc. v. Knight, No. 09-04-00452-CV, 2006 WL 510338 , at *3-4 & n. 4 (Tex.App.-Beaumont Mar. 2, 2006, no pet.) (mem.op.) (rendering judgment in favor of the lender because there was undisputed evidence that the defendants signed a deed of trust with a tenancy-at-sufferance clause); Villalon v. Bank One, 176 S.W.3d 66, 68-71 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (no intertwined title issue when the defendant alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; the defendant "stipulated” that he financed the purchase of the property with a promissory note sec

2015Registration Sys., Inc. v. Knight, No. 09-04-00452-CV, 2006 WL 510338 , at *3-4 & n. 4 (Tex.App.-Beaumont Mar. 2, 2006, no pet.) (mem.op.) (rendering judgment in favor of the lender because there was undisputed evidence that the defendants signed a deed of trust with a tenancy-at-sufferance clause); Villalon v. Bank One, 176 S.W.3d 66, 68-71 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (no intertwined title issue when the defendant alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; the defendant "stipulated” that he financed the purchase of the property with a promissory note sec

2015Registration Sys., Inc. v. Knight, No. 09-04-00452-CV, 2006 WL 510338 , at *3-4 & n. 4 (Tex.App.-Beaumont Mar. 2, 2006, no pet.) (mem.op.) (rendering judgment in favor of the lender because there was undisputed evidence that the defendants signed a deed of trust with a tenancy-at-sufferance clause); Villalon v. Bank One, 176 S.W.3d 66, 68-71 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (no intertwined title issue when the defendant alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; the defendant "stipulated” that he financed the purchase of the property with a promissory note sec