There has been three evictions filed on me. All three have errors that get case dismissed... isn't this illegal... like what is the legal number of times a landowner can do this? BTW, of course, this is in TEXAS. Like where else could it be?
Thanks

Why have you received 3 notices of eviction? What was the reason stated on the eviction notice?

The first eviction hearing he didn't show up. Default, dismissal
The second eviction trial was yesterday, jury trial and I motioned for dismissal after he provided proof of notice to vacate and then sat down and said nothing. Dismissed on my motion.
He immediately filed another eviction yesterday and I was served this morning. No notice to vacate (Texas requires 3 days minimum before filing eviction) trial is 10 days from today. Actually I would now like to use his filing to countersue on Retaliation. We have no written lease, we had a personal relationship and he is on bond for family assault of me and I feel he wants me off his land.
The only reason he gives on the eviction is " I want my home back" and is asking for no money just possession of the property. The bond conditions he has prohibits him contact with me or coming within 200 yards of my/our residence.

... The only reason he gives on the eviction is " I want my home back" ...

If he has sued you for eviction three times now, that would be a reasonable deduction.

Obviously I don't know a lot about Texas eviction procedures (jury trial- *shakes head in amazement*), but it seems to me that the notice he proved in trial #2 would still be good.

I'm shaking my head too. You have no lease, he clearly owns the property. So you have no right to occupy the property. I can understand the first dismissal for not showing up. But I don't understand the second, unless the notice to vacate did not follow the law.

All he has to do is give you a legal notice to vacate. If you do not vacate by the deadline, then the court should issue an eviction order. This is cut and dried.

So either something more is going on here or you should prepare to move.

I just noticed this was posted in Family Law, not Real Estate law. So what is your relationship?

He can keep doing it till he does it right ( perhaps hire an attorney next time, since he is messing up)

Since you have no legal right to live there ( never did say way he is trying to evict) but since he has the legal right to remove you from the home with legal notice, it is obvious that you are merely causing him trouble by not moving.
** and I would have to ask why.

But he may keep doing it, till he finally gets you out of the house.

... But I don't understand the second, unless the notice to vacate did not follow the law. ...

Might have something to do with the restraining order perhaps? The LL might have felt unsure of how to proceed in light of that, which might explain his sitting down and saying nothing after he had proven the notice to vacate. Perhaps the judge felt that the plaintiff had the burden of proving OP was still occupying the property?

Clearly we are not being told the whole story here. The fact that this is under Family Law, the fact that there is a restraining order, indicates this is a domestic dispute and may be behind the issues with an eviction.

But the bottom line here, is, unless the property is marital property, if the landlord owns it, he will eventually get a court to issue an eviction order. And he can keep trying until he does it right. There is no limit on how many times unless the suit is dismissed with prejudice.

Interesting concept of the notice to vacate on trial #2 would "hold over" or still be applicable since each action requires new citation, new filing fees and I believe are considered trial de novo. No record is made at these trials BTW. Even
Though the judge accepted the notice to vacate, the evidence was not examined and the envelope presumedly holding the notice to vacate had never been opened since it had never been received but returned to sender.

The reason for asking under family law is the inclusion of the family relationship that exists under legal definition of family member in civil and criminal cases.

To me this is harassment... no one else thinks so?

... the envelope presumedly holding the notice to vacate had never been opened since it had never been received but returned to sender.
....

Let me understand. At the trial (court case #2), he introduced the envelope as evidence and it was admitted by the judge. Did the court open the envelope to acertain what the contents were?

Doesn't matter, really. If you received the envelope, whiich he said was a notice to quit, and returned it unopened, you received a notice. If you chose not to open it, that's your problem. You have been given a due notice as required.


... To me this is harassment..............no one else thinks so?

Nope. Not I, any way.

Again you are not telling us the full story here. I'm not going to speculate on what is harassment or not without more background. All I see at this point is you are keeping him from using HIS property and living rent free.

If you received the envelope,

I clearly stated I never received the envelope. As it were, I was in Iowa at the time of the "NOTICE" and never had any knowledge of these events until my son made me aware and I went to the clerk of the court and asked her what if any info she had... etc.

Oh if the state law was so black and white... mix in a little this and that and the waters muddy very quickly..

It seems you don't want a real answer but just for us to support your position. That's not how we work here. If you don't want to give us enough of the full story to provide a good answer, then we can't help.

Based on TX law (for that matter the law in just about all states) as I understand it, if you occupy someone else's property, then you either pay them rent or get evicted. Even if you pay the rent, but do not have a lease with a future expiration date, the landlord can give you notice to vacate and, as long as proper notice is given, an eviction will be granted.

There may be some exceptions to allow the tenant to stay, but they are rare.

If the property is considered the marital home, then a divorce needs to be obtained with the property owner getting the property as part of the divorce, before they can evict a spouse.

I don't owe any rent and none is being sued for. We are considered in a complicated relationship. The landowner was the best man at my wedding 9 years ago. We separated and Kenneth pled his love. We moved in together on this property which was his father's at the time. The father wanted us to both have it to keep. However, since I was still married, I feared community property involvement with the husband. So we just left things as it were. Kenneth and I are no longer getting along and he wants me out. He assaulted me and was arrested. While he is now on bond awaiting trial, he is not allowed on the property and is living at his parent's home. So, he filed eviction.

Thank you for your considerate reply.

Not very complicated. Who considers it that way? You left your husband and moved in with Kenneth. You have no legal rights to the property.

As soon as he gives you proper notice, you will have to move or be evicted. I'm really surprised the judge didn't put on notice and tell you to move. He must have really pissed off the judge. So I suggest you start looking for a new place.

It certainly took a long time to get an explanation - and, yes, I see eviction in the future and absolutely no harassment.