Brian Robert Cunningham v. Brent Cunningham

No. 03-25-00180-CV · Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin · December 9, 2025 · No. No. 03-25-00180-CV

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed a county court judgment awarding possession of premises to Brent Cunningham in a forcible-detainer action. The court held that Brian Cunningham failed to support his challenges to Brent’s standing, superior right to possession, and alleged due-process violations, particularly because no reporter’s record or supporting evidence was provided.

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin
Writing for the Court
Karin Crump; Justices Triana; Justice Theofanis; Justice Crump
Jurisdiction
Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, Austin
Decision date
December 9, 2025
Docket number
No. 03-25-00180-CV
Procedural posture
Appeal from a county court at law judgment awarding possession in a forcible-detainer action after a post-answer default judgment.
Standard of review
Standing determinations are reviewed de novo, with pleadings construed in the plaintiff's favor and relevant evidence considered. Because no reporter's record was filed through the appellant's fault, the appellate court presumed that the omitted evidence supported the judgment and considered only issues that did not require a reporter's record.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Brian Robert Cunningham v. Brent Cunningham
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

evictiondefault judgmentstandingappellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedurereal estatetrustslandlord tenant

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Brent Cunningham had standing to bring the forcible-detainer action as successor trustee of the Lock Trust.
  2. Whether Brian Cunningham established a superior right to possession based on a purported March 11, 2025 Certificate of Trust.
  3. Whether the county court's judgment violated due process or public policy.
  4. Whether the absence of a reporter's record required affirmance of the judgment.

Holdings

  1. Brian failed to support his contention that the Lock Trust had been voided before judgment; therefore, the court upheld the trial court's implied determination that Brent had standing as the Trust's successor trustee.
  2. Brian failed to establish a superior right to possession based on the purported Certificate of Trust, and the absence of a reporter's record required the court to presume that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that Brent was the successor trustee with the superior right to possession.
  3. Brian failed to demonstrate reversible due-process or public-policy error because those arguments merely repeated his unsupported contention that the Trust had been voided.

Key quotations

In the absence of a reporter’s record, we must presume that the trial court heard sufficient evidence to make all necessary findings in support of its judgment (slip op. at 2)
Because Brian has not demonstrated any reversible error by the trial court, we overrule his appellate issues. (slip op. at 3)

Factual background

Brent Cunningham, acting as successor trustee of the Lock Trust, alleged that the Trust owned the premises and that Brian Cunningham had no lease or other right of possession. The Trust provided that Brent would become successor trustee upon the incapacity of the settlor and original trustee, Patricia Louise Lock, whose incapacity and guardianship had been established by a November 12, 2024 court order. Brent gave Brian written notice to vacate, but Brian refused. Brian later relied on a purported March 11, 2025 Certificate of Trust to argue that the Trust had been voided and that he had a superior right to possession, but he identified no supporting evidence in the appellate record.

Procedural history

Brent Cunningham, as successor trustee of the Lock Trust, filed a forcible-detainer action against Brian Cunningham in justice court, alleging that the Trust owned the premises and that Brian had no right to possession. After the justice court ruled against Brian, he appealed de novo to the county court at law. Brian filed an answer but failed to appear at the bench trial despite receiving notice, and the county court rendered a default judgment awarding possession to Brent. The court of appeals affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…