[Comment] Houston Court of Appeals guts $10K jurisdictional limit of JP Courts on Appeal, citing itself as authority - Chapman v. Pham (Tex.App.- Houston 2018)

The jurisdictional limit of justice courts has been raised several times by the Texas Legislature and currently stands at $10,000, interest excluded - unless an appellate court says otherwise, of course, as the First Court of Appeals just did last week. Aletha Chapman v. Thinh Quoc Pham, No. 01-13-00066-CV (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 3, 2018) (attorneys' fees awarded by county court on appeal from JP court do not count towards the jurisdictional cap).

You might think that attorney's fees increase as attorney work is performed and charged at reasonable rates. A panel on one of the two Houston Courts of Appeals, however, just opined that attorneys fees increase as a function of passage of time, citing itself as authority. At least for purposes of affirming a judgment in excess of $10,000 granted by a county court in a case appealed from JP court, which included an award of $5,000 in attorney fees that brought the total amount in controversy over the $10,000 limit. In such appeals, the jurisdiction of the county court is limited to the jurisdiction of the JP court. Unless, of course, the court of appeals creates an exception. 

-- What is the point of a jurisdictional limit set by the Legislature if an appellate court then does not enforce it and allows it to be exceeded by heavy litigation activity and concomitant fees?  

ALETHA CHAPMAN, Appellant,

v.
THINH QUOC PHAM, Appellee.

No. 01-13-00066-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston.

Opinion issued April 3, 2018.

Thinh Quoc Pham, for Appellee, Pro Se.

Michele B. Chimene, for Aletha Chapman, Appellant.

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 3, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Case No. 1006033.

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Brown.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LAURA CARTER HIGLEY, Justice.

Thinh Quoc Pham, appellee, sued Aletha Chapman, appellant, in a Harris County small claims court, claiming property damage caused by Chapman. Pham appealed the small claims court's take-nothing judgment to a Harris County civil court at law. Chapman now appeals the judgment rendered against her in that court. In two issues, Chapman argues that the county court at law lacked jurisdiction because Pham did not timely appeal the justice court's judgment and that the county court at law's judgment exceeded the court's jurisdictional limits.

We affirm.

Background

Pham filed suit against Chapman in a Harris County small claims court in July 2011. Pham alleged damage to his condominium unit following a leak in Chapman's upstairs condominium unit. The small claims court rendered a take-nothing judgment against Pham on November 29, 2011.

On December 8, 2011, the small claims court transferred to the county court $197, identified as "plaintiff's cash appeal bond." Pham retained an attorney to represent him in the county court. Chapman briefly did the same. After a trial, the county court rendered a judgment in favor of Pham. The court awarded $6,900 in actual damages, $5,000 in attorneys' fees, and court costs.

Standard of Review

Both of Chapman's issues challenge the county court at law's subject-matter jurisdiction. We review issues challenging a trial court's jurisdiction de novo. Tex. Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004).

Appeal of Justice Court Judgment

In her first issue, Chapman argues that the county court lacked jurisdiction over Pham's appeal of the small claims court's judgment because Pham did not timely perfect appeal to the county court. The rule applicable at the time Pham appealed to the county court required a bond to be paid within ten days of the judgment being signed. TEX. R. CIV. P. 571, 53 Tex. B.J. 589, 605 (Tex. 1990, repealed 2013). The small claims court signed its judgment on November 29, 2011. Chapman argues that Pham's bond was not filed until December 14, 2011, outside of the ten-day window. We disagree.

The record, as ordered to be supplemented by this Court, shows that the small claims court submitted to the county clerk—the clerk for the county court—Pham's appeal bond on December 8, 2011. This indicates that Pham paid his appeal bond on or before the 8th, within the ten-day window of the signing of the small claims court's judgment.

The document that established the cash bond was transferred is file stamped December 14, 2011. This is the date that the document was formally filed in the county clerk's records. It is not the date that Pham submitted the bond to the small claims court.

We overrule Chapman's first issue.

Jurisdictional Limits on Damages

In her second issue, Chapman argues that the county court's judgment award exceeds the jurisdictional limit placed on it. Pham retained an attorney to represent him in the county court. The judgment awards Pham $6,900 in actual damages, $5,000 in attorneys' fees, and court costs. Chapman argues that the county court was jurisdictionally limited to awards of $10,000 or less and that, accordingly, the award must be reduced to $10,000 in total.

The small claims court lacks jurisdiction over civil matters in which the amount in controversy is more than $10,000, "exclusive of interest." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 27.031(a)(1) (West Supp. 2017). "The appellate jurisdiction of a statutory county court is confined to the jurisdictional limits of the justice court, and the county court has no jurisdiction over an appeal unless the justice court had jurisdiction." Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705, 708 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2001, no pet.). As a result, "a county court may not issue an award against a principal on appeal that exceeds the jurisdiction of the justice court unless the additional damages were sustained as a result of the passage of time." Kendziorski v. Saunders, 191 S.W.3d 395, 406 (Tex. App.-Austin 2006, no pet.). An example of damages sustained as a result of the passage of time is attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting the case in the county court. Id. at 409; Lost Creek Ventures, LLC v. Pilgrim, No. 01-15-00375-CV, 2016 WL 3569756, at *8 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 30, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). Because the attorneys' fees incurred in the county court do not count towards the jurisdictional cap on the judgment, the county court's judgment does not exceed the cap.

We overrule Chapman's second issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE

TITLE 2. JUDICIAL BRANCH
SUBTITLE A. COURTS

CHAPTER 27. JUSTICE COURTS

SUBCHAPTER B. JURISDICTION AND POWERS

Sec. 27.031.  JURISDICTION.  (a)  In addition to the jurisdiction and powers provided by the constitution and other law, the justice court has original jurisdiction of:

(1)  civil matters in which exclusive jurisdiction is not in the district or county court and in which the amount in controversy is not more than $10,000, exclusive of interest;

(2)  cases of forcible entry and detainer;

(3)  foreclosure of mortgages and enforcement of liens on personal property in cases in which the amount in controversy is otherwise within the justice court's jurisdiction; and

(4)  cases arising under Chapter 707, Transportation Code, outside a municipality's territorial limits.

(b)  A justice court does not have jurisdiction of:

(1)  a suit in behalf of the state to recover a penalty, forfeiture, or escheat;

(2)  a suit for divorce;

(3)  a suit to recover damages for slander or defamation of character;

(4)  a suit for trial of title to land;  or

(5)  a suit for the enforcement of a lien on land.

(c)  A justice court has concurrent jurisdiction with a municipal court in cases that arise in the municipality's extraterritorial jurisdiction and that arise under an ordinance of the municipality applicable to the extraterritorial jurisdiction under Section 216.902, Local Government Code.

(d)  A corporation need not be represented by an attorney in justice court.

(e)  A justice court has concurrent jurisdiction with a district court and a municipal court of record over expunction proceedings relating to the arrest of a person for an offense punishable by fine only.


Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 480, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985.  Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 745, Sec. 2, eff. June 20, 1987;  Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 776, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1991.

Amended by: 

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 383 (S.B. 618), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 612 (H.B. 413), Sec. 12, eff. September 1, 2007.

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1149 (S.B. 1119), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 87 (S.B. 1969), Sec. 27.001(18), eff. September 1, 2009.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1149 (H.B. 557), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2017.

JUSTICE COURT VS. SMALL CLAIMS COURT (NOW DEFUNCT) 

In re United Services Auto. Ass'n, 307 SW 3d 299 (Tex. 2010)

Appellate rights can vary depending on which court a case is filed in, even among trial courts with concurrent jurisdiction, and even when the same judge in the same courtroom presides over two distinct courts. See, e.g., Sultan, 178 S.W.3d at 752 (holding that there was no right of appeal to courts of appeals from cases originating in small claims courts, but recognizing that justice court judgment would be appealable); see also id. at 754-55 (Hecht, J., dissenting) (noting that the same justice of the peace hears small claims cases and justice court cases).^[6] 

[6] Section 28.053 of the Government Code, at issue in Sultan, was recently amended to allow appeals to the court of appeals from de novo trials in county court on claims originating in small claims court. See Act of June 19, 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., ch. 1351, section 8, 2009 Tex. Gen. Laws 4274, 4274.