Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Palmira P. CUELLAR and Ramiro Cuellar, Appellants
CVI LCF MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST I, Appellee
the County Court, Duval County, Texas Trial Court No.
18-C-1574 Honorable Ricardo O. Carrillo, Judge Presiding
by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice, Irene Rios, Justice,
Beth Watkins, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
a forcible detainer action, appellants Palmira C. Cuellar and
Ramiro Cuellar appeal from the trial court's judgment in
favor of appellee CVI LCF Mortgage Loan Trust I (the Trust).
On appeal, the Cuellars raise twelve granular points of error
which they aggregate into two issues: whether the trial court
erred (1) by rendering judgment for the Trust because it
lacked standing or capacity to sue, and (2) by failing to
file findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm the
trial court's judgment.
Cuellars owned certain residential property in Duval County,
Texas (the Property), secured by a deed of trust. After the
Cuellars defaulted on the note, the Trust purchased the
Property at a foreclosure sale. The Trust demanded the
Cuellars vacate the Property. When the Cuellars failed to
vacate, the Trust filed a forcible detainer action in the
justice court rendered judgment for the Trust and awarded
possession of the property to the Trust. The Cuellars
appealed to the county court for a trial de novo. In their
unverified answer, the Cuellars denied the Trust had
authority to prosecute the suit. In response, the Trust filed
a supplemental petition in which it named U.S. Bank Trust
National Association, in its capacity as trustee of the
Trust, as an additional prosecuting party.
bench trial, the trial court rendered a final judgment in
favor of the "Plaintiff," awarding possession of
the Property to the "Plaintiff." The Cuellars filed
a timely request for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 296. When no findings and
conclusions were filed, the Cuellars timely filed a notice of
past due findings of fact and conclusions of law. See
id. R. 297. The trial court failed to file the requested
findings and conclusions, and the Cuellars appeal.
their first issue, the Cuellars assert the trial court erred
in rendering judgment for the Trust because the Trust lacked
standing or capacity to prosecute the forcible detainer
action. We begin with standing.
Trust's Standing to Prosecute Forcible Detainer
plaintiff has standing when it is personally
aggrieved, regardless of whether it is acting with legal
authority." Austin Nursing Ctr., Inc. v.
Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845, 848-49 (Tex. 2005) (quoting
Nootsie, Ltd. v. Williamson Cty. Appraisal Dist.,
925 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. 1996)); see Estate of
Matthews, 510 S.W.3d 106, 113 (Tex. App.--San Antonio
2017, pet. denied).
trial de novo in the county court, the Cuellars' original
answer denied that the Trust had "the authority to
prosecute [the] suit." On appeal, they assert that
standing is a component of subject matter jurisdiction and
cannot be waived. See Lovato, 171 S.W.3d at 849;
Matthews, 510 S.W.3d at 113. They then
argue-presumably to challenge the Trust's standing-that