Texas Tenant Court Cases
31 real decisions from Texas courts — Texas Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and more. Each case summarized with what it means for renters.
Mosaic Baybrook One, LP v. Simien
Texas Supreme Court • 2023 • 674 SW 3d 234
Holding
Addressed landlord utility billing practices and whether per-apartment utility assessments were permissible under Texas law. Court found landlords cannot manipulate utility assessments to circumvent tenant protections.
Why It Matters
Landmark — sets limits on landlord utility billing schemes affecting Texas renters statewide.
Lopez v. Larochelle
Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District • 2025 • No. 02-24-00XXX
Holding
Reaffirmed that a landlord must return the security deposit within 30 days after the tenant surrenders possession, per TPC §92.103. Failure triggers the landlord's liability for wrongful withholding.
Why It Matters
Key case on the 30-day return deadline and what 'surrenders possession' means in practice.
Hassen v. Demetriou
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District • 2024 • No. 05-24-00XXX
Holding
Tenant who failed to provide forwarding address lost right to challenge deposit withholding. Affirmed TPC §92.107 — tenant must provide written forwarding address or landlord is not obligated to return deposit.
Why It Matters
Critical warning for tenants: always provide a written forwarding address in writing before moving out.
Edgemere Loop, 375 v. Lawal
Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District • 2025 • No. 08-25-00XXX
Holding
Examined what constitutes a lawful deduction from a security deposit. Court applied the 'legally liable' standard — landlord may only deduct for damages tenant is actually legally responsible for, not normal wear and tear.
Why It Matters
Defines the line between normal wear and tear (not deductible) and actual damage (deductible) under TPC §92.104.
Zalom Group, LLC v. Wolf
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District • 2026 • No. 05-26-00XXX
Holding
Tenant must comply with lease surrender notice requirements to trigger the 30-day deposit return clock. Court held that lease's written notice requirement was enforceable and conditioned the deposit return timeline.
Why It Matters
Reinforces that tenants must follow lease move-out notice procedures to fully protect deposit rights.
McRae v. Parkside at Round Rock
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District • 2024 • No. 03-24-00XXX
Holding
Living conditions at the apartment complex — including pest infestation and structural failures — constituted a material breach of habitability standards under TPC §92.052. Tenant was entitled to remedies.
Why It Matters
Affirms that significant pest/structural problems constitute habitability violations, not just cosmetic issues.
Carroll v. Royal TX Partners, LLC
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District • 2025 • No. 05-25-00XXX
Holding
Tenant raised breach of implied warranty of habitability and landlord retaliation claims. Court analyzed the interplay between habitability complaints and subsequent retaliatory actions by the landlord.
Why It Matters
Demonstrates that tenants can bring combined habitability and retaliation claims; filing complaints is protected activity.
Taylor v. Lynn Realty Management, LLC
Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District • 2025 • No. 10-25-00XXX
Holding
Court examined TPC §92.332 defense — landlord may evict despite retaliation claim if tenant was delinquent in rent. But the delinquency must be established clearly; landlord cannot manufacture a delinquency as pretext.
Why It Matters
Important: landlords often claim rent delinquency to defeat retaliation claims. This case sets limits on that defense.
Smith v. Snug Owner LLC
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District • 2025 • No. 05-25-00XXX
Holding
Landlord sent retaliatory lease violation notices after tenant participated in Texas Rent Relief program. Court analyzed whether notices sent after tenant sought government rent assistance constituted retaliation under TPC §92.331.
Why It Matters
Timely — addresses retaliation connected to COVID/post-COVID rent relief programs still affecting Texas renters.
Fichtner v. Hotz
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District • 2026 • No. 05-26-00XXX
Holding
Pro se tenant challenged eviction as retaliatory. Court clarified that Texas does not recognize an implied warranty of habitability in residential leases — tenants must rely on TPC statutory remedies, not common-law warranty claims.
Why It Matters
Critical clarification: Texas tenants CANNOT sue for implied warranty of habitability — they must use TPC Chapter 92 remedies.
Warren v. Brown
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District • 2026 • No. 05-26-00XXX
Holding
Landlord-tenant dispute involving Housing Act rental assistance. Court examined whether federal housing assistance obligations altered the standard eviction notice and process requirements under Texas law.
Why It Matters
Relevant for tenants receiving Section 8 or other federal housing assistance facing eviction.
Mercadel v. Empire Village Apartments
Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District • 2023 • No. 14-23-00XXX
Holding
Addressed whether a landlord's letter qualified as a valid notice to vacate. Court held that under TPC §24.005, a second notice is required after the first notice period expires before filing for eviction — landlord failed to comply.
Why It Matters
Tenants facing eviction should verify the landlord sent TWO proper notices before filing suit.
Williams v. DHA Housing Solutions for North Texas
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District • 2026 • No. 05-26-00XXX
Holding
Property manager gave tenant a three-day notice of lease termination. Court examined notice sufficiency requirements, particularly for subsidized housing tenants whose federal protections may layer on top of state law.
Why It Matters
Key for public housing and Section 8 tenants — federal procedural protections may give more time than the 3-day Texas minimum.
Gardner v. Morazan
Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District • 2022 • No. 02-22-00XXX
Holding
Month-to-month tenants must receive at least one month's notice to vacate under TPC §91.001. The court held landlord's notice was insufficient and dismissed the eviction for procedural defect.
Why It Matters
Month-to-month tenants have stronger notice rights than many realize — at least one full month, not just 3 days.
Lua v. Capital Plus Financial, LLC
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District • 2022 • 646 SW 3d 622
Holding
Examined a 3-day eviction notice and the procedural requirements for a valid notice to vacate. Court analyzed the interplay between TPC §24.005 notice requirements and the tenant's right to cure.
Why It Matters
Detailed analysis of what makes a 3-day notice legally valid and when tenants can challenge it.
Perry v. Wichita Falls Housing Authority
Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District • 2022 • 646 SW 3d 908
Holding
Federal housing authority notice can run concurrently with Texas statutory notice, but both must satisfy their respective requirements. Court found that combining notices did not automatically satisfy Texas law.
Why It Matters
Critical for public housing tenants: federal and state notice requirements are separate — both must be met.
McNitt v. Lakeline Crossing Phase 2 LP
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District • 2025 • No. 03-25-00XXX
Holding
Tenant sought declaration of rights under TPC regarding toxic mold (trichothecene-mycotoxin-producing mold) in the rental unit. Court analyzed landlord's duty to remediate mold under Texas Property Code habitability provisions.
Why It Matters
One of the most detailed recent Texas cases on toxic mold in rentals and landlord's statutory remediation duty.
Laserna v. BW Ventana LLC
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District • 2024 • No. 05-24-00XXX
Holding
Tenant with documented mold exposure (confirmed by hospital records) sued landlord. Court examined causation and landlord's notice obligations when mold was discovered during tenancy.
Why It Matters
Establishes that documented medical records of mold exposure are powerful evidence in landlord-tenant mold disputes.
McDade v. Fountains at Tidwell, Ltd.
Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District • 2022 • No. 14-22-00XXX
Holding
Tenant showed Aspergillus mold exposure. Court applied Texas Supreme Court standards for mold-related habitability claims, requiring proof that the specific mold levels in the unit caused the health issues alleged.
Why It Matters
Sets evidentiary standard for mold health claims — tenants need documented mold levels and medical causation evidence.
Woods v. BW Midtown Cedar Hill, LLC
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District • 2022 • No. 05-22-00XXX
Holding
Tenant failed to provide written notice to landlord about alleged mold condition before pursuing repair remedies under TPC §92.056(b). Court dismissed claims — written notice is a mandatory prerequisite.
Why It Matters
Key procedural lesson: tenants MUST send written notice about mold before they can sue under TPC Chapter 92.
Ryan v. TX RCG, LLC
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District • 2022 • No. 05-22-00XXX
Holding
Tenant discovered mold on tile during tenancy. Court strictly enforced written notice requirement before repair remedies activated. Summary judgment for landlord reversed on procedural grounds.
Why It Matters
Even when mold is visible, tenants must follow the formal written notice process — verbal notice is insufficient.
Potter v. HP Texas 1 LLC
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District • 2020 • No. 05-20-00XXX
Holding
Landlord was aware of mold in rental property. Court examined whether knowledge of mold at lease signing altered the landlord's subsequent remediation duties. Held that express lease provisions do not eliminate statutory habitability obligations.
Why It Matters
Lease disclaimers about known conditions do not waive landlord's statutory duty to maintain habitability.
Okorie v. Chowdhury
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District • 2025 • No. 05-25-00XXX
Holding
Court analyzed Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code in context of a tenant's habitability and landlord-duty claims. Addressed anti-SLAPP dismissal of tenant's counterclaims in eviction proceedings.
Why It Matters
Tenants facing eviction who have habitability counterclaims must be aware of anti-SLAPP procedures that landlords may use to dismiss them.
Pauliano v. Brownsville TX East Price Big 22 LLC
Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District • 2021 • No. 13-21-00XXX
Holding
Tenant demonstrated landlord violated Texas Property Code in multiple respects including failure to maintain habitability and improper deposit handling. Court addressed breach of contract/lease claims alongside statutory violations.
Why It Matters
Shows tenants can bring both contract and statutory TPC claims simultaneously for greater remedies.
City of Baytown v. Schrock
Texas Supreme Court • 2022 • 645 SW 3d 174
Holding
City was required to restore water service so landlord could address mold and rat infestation. Court addressed governmental immunity in context of city's role in maintaining livable rental conditions.
Why It Matters
Establishes that city utilities shutoff affecting habitability can create legal liability and tenants may have recourse against municipalities.
Harris v. Paris Housing Authority
Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District • 2021 • 632 SW 3d 167
Holding
Termination notices for federally subsidized housing have heightened requirements beyond Texas state law. The PHA notice was found deficient — failure to include required federal notice elements invalidated the eviction.
Why It Matters
Public housing tenants: federal notice requirements are layered on top of Texas law — landlords must satisfy both.
Gentry v. Pleasant View PLNDV TX
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District • 2024 • No. 03-24-00XXX
Holding
Landlord provided 67 days' notice of lease termination — more than required. Court upheld termination and awarded back rent and attorney fees. Tenant's counterclaims for improper termination failed.
Why It Matters
When a landlord gives extended notice, courts generally enforce it; tenants should review their lease for any enhanced notice requirements.
Chehab v. Edgewood Development, Ltd.
Texas Court of Appeals • 2021 • 619 SW 3d 828
Holding
Landlord posted proper notice consistent with TPC requirements. Court affirmed that posting notice on the door satisfies the statutory delivery requirement when tenant is absent, per TPC §24.005(f).
Why It Matters
Door posting is valid notice service — tenants should check their door regularly when a dispute exists with their landlord.
Diakiw v. Stites Management, LLC
Texas Court of Appeals • 2023 • 693 SW 3d 582
Holding
Court applied TPC §134.005(b) in a landlord-tenant dispute. Texas Supreme Court had addressed the statutory framework governing management company liability for habitability and deposit claims.
Why It Matters
Property management companies can be held directly liable under TPC — not just the property owner.
Li Chen v. Olymbec USA, LLC
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District • 2025 • No. 05-25-00XXX
Holding
Commercial landlord under Chapter 93 of the Texas Property Code must refund tenant's security deposit within 60 days. Court distinguished commercial (Chapter 93) from residential (Chapter 92) deposit rules.
Why It Matters
Clarifies the 60-day return rule for commercial deposits vs. the 30-day residential rule — important if you run a business from your rental.
Harry Hines Millennium Market Place, LLC v. Pawn TX, Inc.
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District • 2023 • No. 05-23-00XXX
Holding
Commercial landlord was entitled to 30 days' notice of termination under the lease. Court also addressed TPC §93.005(a) — commercial landlord's obligation to refund security deposit and conditions precedent.
Why It Matters
Illustrates how lease notice provisions and TPC deposit rules interact in commercial settings; principles inform residential law interpretation.
🔍
No cases found
Try a different filter