The opinion
Opinion issued January 22, 2026
In the
Court of Appeals
for the
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-24-00183-CV
———————————
DENNIS FISHER AND SHERYL FISHER, Appellants
v.
PINE VILLAGE NORTH ASOCIATION, Appellee
On Appeal from the 333rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2016-56465
CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION
During pretrial discussions, the trial court informed Dennis and Sheryl Fisher
(in front of Pine Village North Association’s counsel) that, if they were challenging
Pine Village’s capacity, they could present evidence on that issue during trial. The
Fishers did not object that it was Pine Village’s burden to prove its capacity to sue.
In its findings of fact, the trial court found that the Fishers failed to present sufficient
evidence to prove Pine Village’s lack of capacity to sue.
On appeal, the Fishers do not present any argument or authority that the trial
court improperly placed the burden on them of proving Pine Village’s lack of
capacity or explain why Dennis Fisher’s testimony conclusively established Pine
Village’s lack of capacity. They cite law for the proposition that standing is a
component of subject-matter jurisdiction that the plaintiff has a burden to establish
at each stage of litigation, cannot be waived, and the lack of which renders a
judgment void—law inapplicable to the propriety of the trial court allowing the
Fishers (without objection) to present evidence on Pine Village’s lack of capacity (a
non-jurisdictional issue) and ruling they did not present sufficient evidence.
Thus, instead of delving into whether the Fishers waived the capacity issue by
not filing a verified denial, I would hold they failed to establish that the trial court
committed reversible error in finding that they failed to present evidence to prove
Pine Village’s lack of capacity. I respectfully concur in the majority’s judgment.
Andrew Johnson
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Guiney, and Johnson.
Justice Johnson, concurring.
2