TSPS MAR APR 2024 FINAL - Flipbook - Page 24
ATTORNEY’S ANGLE
TEXAS REAL ESTATE
LAW RECENT CASES
The following is a summary of the recent Texas real estate law cases as
prepared by the Real Estate Section of the State Bar of Texas.
For more information regarding these cases or other legal
issues of signi昀椀cance to the
surveying profession, contact
TSPS Legal Counsel,
MARK J. HANNA,
2414 Exposition Boulevard,
Suite A-1, Austin, Texas
78703; telephone: (512) 4776200; fax: (512) 477-1188.
LEASES
EVICTIONS
SH Salon L.L.C. v. Midtown Market Missouri City, L.L.C.,
632 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021. no pet.).
Harris v. Paris Housing Auth.,
632 S.W.3d 167 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2021, no pet.).
The tenant’s lease included a forum selection clause that said that
the lease was governed by New York law and that any action under the lease would be adjudicated exclusively in Monroe County,
New York, and including a waiver of all objections to venue based
on forum non conveniens.
. . . ‘[F]ederal regulations state that no termination of a tenancy in
a federally subsidized project is valid unless notice is provided to the
tenant detailing the reasons for the eviction with enough speci昀椀city
so as to enable the tenant to provide a defense,’ ‘If the landlord fails
to provide proper notice to a tenant in federally subsidized housing,
the tenant’s lease will not be terminated and the landlord will have
no right to possession.’
Id. at *172 (quoting Moon v. Spring Creek Apts., 11 S.W.3d 427,
436 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, no pet.)).
Even though the lease is governed by the laws of New York, the question of whether the [tenant’s] claims should be dismissed based on
the forum-selection clause is a matter governed by Texas law. [U]
nder Texas law, courts look at the factual allegations undergirding
the claims when deciding whether the claims are encompassed by
the forum-selection clause.
....
Forum-selection clauses are generally enforceable, and we presume that the clause here is valid. As the opponent of that presumption, the [tenant] had the ‘heavy’ burden of showing that (1) enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust, (2) the clause is invalid
for reasons of fraud or overreaching, (3) enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum where the suit was brought,
or (4) the selected forum would be seriously inconvenient for trial.
....
When, as here, a party could have foreseen at the time of contracting the inconvenience of having to litigate a claim in a foreign forum, the party cannot escape the contract’s forum-selection clause
unless the party shows that ‘trial in the contractual forum will be so
gravely dif昀椀cult and inconvenient that the party will for all practice
purposes be deprived of its day in court.’ The mere fact that most of
[the tenant’s] witnesses reside in Texas does not establish as a matter of law that [the tenant] would be deprived of its day in court if
the venue were moved to New York.
Id. at *658–59 (internal citations omitted).
Termination notices for federally subsidized housing have been
found to be insuf昀椀cient where they contain only one sentence, are
framed in vague and conclusory language, or fail to set forth a
factual statement to justify termination. . . . [N]otices that fail to
specify dates of alleged violations or the individuals involved, recite
broad language from regulations, reference unspeci昀椀ed illegal acts,
or list generic adverse impacts are insuf昀椀cient.
Here, while the notice stated that [Housing Authority] had received
‘multiple complaints’ of the tenant ‘cursing and screaming at tenants/
neighbors,’ it failed to specify the dates of the alleged incidents or
the people involved. While it alleged that the tenant was ‘belligerent
and aggressive’ and ‘harassed’ maintenance workers on a particular
day, the language was vague and conclusory. Although the notice alleged that [the tenant] had violated a tenant obligation described in
[the lease], there were no speci昀椀c factual allegations setting forth any
criminal activity or unlawful or disorderly behavior that was a hazard to safety or created a nuisance. The complaint that [the tenant]
had ‘exhibited activity that threatened the health, safety, or right to
peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents or [] employees [of the Housing Authority]’ was also vague and conclusory and
parroted the broad language of the [Housing Authority] regulations.
Id. at *172–73 (internal citations omitted)
Thus, the court concluded “that the notice to [the tenant] failed ‘to
set forth a factual statement to justify termination.’”
Id. at *173 (internal citation omitted).
22
THE TEXAS SURVEYOR March 2024