# Dennis Fisher and Sheryl Fisher v. Pine Village North Asociation

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · January 22, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11246005

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** January 22, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence
- **Nature of suit:** Real Property
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11246005

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11246005. Public record. Not legal advice.