JOELLA D. PRUITT AND ALL OCCUPANTS OF 425 TIERRA LANE, WAXAHACHIE, TX 75167, Appellants
PAMELA D. SCOTT, Appellee
the County Court at Law Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No.
Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill
E. NEILL JUSTICE.
forcible-entry-and-detainer action, appellants, Joella D.
Pruitt and all occupants of 425 Tierra Lane, Waxahachie,
Texas 75167, challenge a judgment entered in favor of
appellee, Pamela D. Scott. Because we overrule all of
appellants' issues on appeal, we affirm.
The Substitute Trustee's Deed
their first issue, appellants complain that the trial court
abused its discretion by overruling their objection and
admitting a conclusory portion of appellee's substitute
trustee's deed. Specifically, appellants argue that the
following portion of the substitute trustee's deed was
conclusory and, thus, should not have been admitted:
"Lender and Substitute Trustee have satisfied all
requirements of the Deed of Trust and applicable law for
enforcement of the power of sale contained in the Deed of
Trust and for the sale of the Property . . . ."
admission or exclusion of evidence rests in the sound
discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed
absent an abuse of that discretion. Owens-Corning
Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35, 43 (Tex.
1998). In determining whether there was an abuse of
discretion, we must ascertain whether the trial court acted
without reference to any guiding rules and principles.
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d
238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985).
admission or exclusion of evidence to constitute reversible
error, the complaining party must show that: (1) the trial
court committed error; and (2) the error probably caused the
rendition of an improper judgment. Tex.R.App.P. 44.1;
State v. Cent. Expressway Sign Assocs., 302 S.W.3d
866, 870 (Tex. 2009). We review the entire record to
determine if the error probably resulted in the rendition of
an improper judgment. Cent. Expressway Sign Assocs.,
302 S.W.3d at 870. Typically, a successful challenge to a
trial court's evidentiary ruling requires the complaining
party to demonstrate that the judgment turns on the
particular evidence excluded or admitted. Tex. Dep't
of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. 2000);
City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750,
753-54 (Tex. 1995).
without deciding, that the trial court erred by admitting the
complained-of portion of the substitute trustee's deed,
we cannot say that appellants have adequately explained how
the admission of this evidence caused the rendition of an
improper judgment in this forcible-detainer action.
prevail and obtain possession in a forcible-detainer action,
the law requires appellees to show: (1) the substitute
trustee conveyed the property by deed to appellees after the
foreclosure sale; (2) the deed of trust signed by appellants
established a landlord-tenant relationship between appellants
and appellees; (3) appellees gave proper notice to appellants
to vacate the premises; and (4) appellants refused to vacate
the premises. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc. v. Freeney,
266 S.W.3d 623, 625 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.);
see Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§ 24.002(a)(2),
(b), 24.005 (West 2014 & Supp. 2018).
the First Court of Appeals has stated the following in a
A plaintiff in a forcible detainer action is not required to
prove title, but is only required to show sufficient evidence
of ownership to demonstrate a superior right to immediate
possession. Under well-settled law, a deed of trust that
establishes a landlord-tenant relationship between the
borrower and the purchaser of the ...