Court of Appeals of Texas, Eighth District, El Paso
ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ AND THE FREEDOM INDEED FOUNDATION, INC., Appellants,
ALBERTO ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ AND REYNALDO AARON MORALES, Appellees.
from the County Court at Law No. 3 of El Paso County, Texas
McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
M. PALAFOX, JUSTICE.
Hernandez, pro se, and the Freedom Indeed
Foundation, appeal from an order denying their application
for reentry. We affirm.
Hernandez, a tenant pursuant to an alleged oral lease,
previously appealed from a judgment granting possession of
the subject property to U.S. Bank Trust. See Hernandez v.
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF8 Master
Participation Trust, Cause No. 08-16-00290-CV, 2017 WL
1953291, at *1 (Tex.App.--El Paso May 11, 2017, no pet.).
Hernandez failed to timely supersede the judgment and U.S.
Bank Trust obtained a writ of possession. See Hernandez
v. U.S. Bank Trust, NA as Trustee for LSF8 Master
Participation Trust, 527 S.W.3d 307, 310 (Tex.App.--El
Paso 2017, opinion on motion). On March 13, 2017, U.S. Bank
Trust executed a writ of possession and took possession of
the subject property. Hernandez, 2017 WL 1953291, at
*1. Consequently, we dismissed Hernandez's appeal as
moot. Id., at *2.
the pendency of that appeal, the Appellees, Alberto Enrique
Hernandez and Reynaldo Aaron Morales, placed a winning bid
via an online auction on February 2, 2017 to purchase the
subject property, and they executed a real estate Purchase
Agreement for the property the following day. Pursuant to the
Purchase Agreement, Appellees became obligated to buy and
U.S. Bank Trust became obligated to deliver a deed and convey
title to Appellees upon satisfaction of certain conditions to
the closing of the transaction. One of the conditions
required Appellees to deposit the purchase proceeds balance
with the designated title company and the Purchase Agreement
required the closing to occur on or before 45 days from the
execution of the Purchase Agreement. U.S. Bank Trust, as
trustee for LSF8 Master Participation Trust, signed a Special
Warranty Deed for the property on February 27, 2017. The deed
was delivered to U.S. Bank Trust's attorney. The writ of
possession was executed on March 13, 2017 and Appellants were
vacated from the subject property.
trial court determined that after February 27, 2017, and on
or before March 16, 2017, the Special Warranty Deed was
delivered to the title company to be held in escrow until the
conditions of the closing were satisfied. The transaction
closed on March 16, 2017, and Appellees satisfied all
conditions to the closing, including depositing the balance
of the purchase proceeds with the title company. In
accordance with the Purchase Agreement, the Special Warranty
Deed was delivered to Appellees on that date, and it was
filed and recorded in the official records of El Paso County,
Texas, on March 21, 2017.
April 13, 2017, Appellants filed an application for writ of
reentry in the Justice Court, Precinct 7, of El Paso County,
Texas, alleging that Appellees had unlawfully evicted them
and locked them out of the property. They also sought
damages. The Justice Court denied the application, and
Appellants pursued an appeal to the County Court at Law No.
3. Finding that title to the property did not convey until
the closing on March 16, 2017, the County Court at Law denied
the application for writ of reentry and dismissed the cause
their sole issue, Appellants assert that the trial court
abused its discretion by denying their application for writ
of reentry. They argue, as they did in the trial court, that
Appellees acquired title to the property on February 27, 2017
when U.S. Bank Trust signed the Special Warranty Deed.
trial court made written findings of fact and conclusions of
law. Findings of fact entered in a case tried to the bench
have the same force and dignity as a jury's verdict upon
questions. Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806
S.W.2d 791, 794 (Tex. 1991). These findings are reviewable
for factual and legal sufficiency under the same standards
that are applied in reviewing evidence supporting a
jury's answer. El Paso County Hospital District v.
Gilbert, 64 S.W.3d 200, 203 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2001,
pet. denied); Zieben v. Platt, 786 S.W.2d 797, 799
(Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no writ). Conclusions
of law are reviewed de novo. BMC Software
Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex.
2002). We will uphold conclusions of law on appeal if the
judgment can be sustained on any legal theory supported by
the evidence. See Stable Energy, L.P. v. Newberry,
999 S.W.2d 538, 547 (Tex.App.--Austin 1999, pet. denied).
Further, if we determine that a conclusion of law is
erroneous, but the trial court rendered the proper judgment,
the erroneous conclusion of law does not require reversal.
BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 794.