Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 & Probate Court
Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. CI57029
consists of Justices Lloyd, Landau, and Countiss.
Beth Landau Justice
Ray Cannon appeals a judgment from the County Court at Law
No. 2 of Brazoria County in a forcible-detainer suit that
awarded Sopheak Kong possession of commercial property and a
money judgment of $121. We have asked the parties to address
whether this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal. Having
considered any received responses and the applicable law, we
have determined that we do not have appellate jurisdiction.
Therefore, we dismiss this appeal.
Jurisdiction over Appeal of Forcible-Detainer
Judgment on Issue of Possession of
Commercial Property or Any Findings
Essential to that Issue
forcible-detainer suit is the judicial procedure for
determining the right to immediate possession of real
property. Tex. Prop. Code § 24.002. The justice court in
the precinct where the property is located has exclusive
jurisdiction over the forcible-detainer action. Id.
§ 24.004(a); Tex. Gov't Code § 27.031(a)(2);
see Hong Kong Dev., Inc. v. Nguyen, 229 S.W.3d 415,
433 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). An appeal
from the judgment of a justice court in a forcible-detainer
action is by trial de novo in a county court. Tex.R.Civ.P.
justice court's judgment in a forcible-detainer suit has
been appealed to the county court, there can be no subsequent
appeal to an intermediate court of appeals concerning the
issue of possession if the suit dealt with property used for
commercial purposes. See Tex. Prop. Code
§ 24.007 ("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.") (emphasis added);
Carlson's Hill Country Beverage, L.C. v. Westinghouse
Rd. Joint Venture, 957 S.W.2d 951, 953 (Tex. App.-Austin
1997, no pet.).
prohibition against considering the issue of possession of
commercial property "includes consideration of any
finding 'essential to the issue of,' 'dependent
on,' or 'primarily concerned with the issue of'
possession." Hong Kong, 229 S.W.3d at 431-32
(internal citations omitted); see, e.g.,
Carlson's Hill Country Beverage, 957 S.W.2d at
953 (holding that breach of lease is "merely an element
of possession and may not be appealed"); A.V.A.
Servs., Inc. v. Parts Indus., 949 S.W.2d 852, 853 (Tex.
App.-Beaumont 1997, no writ) (no jurisdiction to review
finding of landlord-tenant relationship because it was issue
of possession); W. Anderson Plaza v. Feyznia, 876
S.W.2d 528, 536 (Tex. App.- Austin 1994, no writ) (stating
that "finding on a threshold issue such as the adequacy
of notice before termination cannot be appealed if such a
finding is merely an element of the issue of
parties agree that the lease at issue in this
forcible-detainer suit is a commercial lease. Thus, this
court does not have appellate jurisdiction over the county
court's judgment concerning any possession-centered
claims related to this commercial lease, including
Cannon's challenges to adequacy of notice to vacate the
premises, breach by either party of the commercial lease, and
timing of breach as it related to right to
Jurisdiction Over Money Judgment Involving Amount in
Controversy of $250 or Less
addition to an award of possession of the commercial property
to Kong, the county court awarded a money judgment to Kong of
$121. To the extent Cannon challenges this aspect of the
county court's judgment, we have no jurisdiction to
consider his challenge because $121 is below the minimum
amount in controversy for our appellate jurisdiction. Tex.
Gov't Code § 22.220(a) (establishing as minimum
amount in controversy for intermediate courts' appellate
jurisdiction an amount that exceeds $250); see McIssac v.
McIssac, 488 S.W.2d 157, 159 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th
Dist.] 1972, writ dism'd) (stating that, for appellate
courts to have jurisdiction over appeal of order relating to
costs, amount of costs must equal amount in
dismiss this appeal for ...