1 

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00105-CV

__________________

CRISTY WILLIAMSON, Appellant

V.

OMKAR SHARMA, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 21-32146

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a bench trial, Cristy Williamson appeals and complains 

the trial court erred (1) in failing to conduct the trial with a jury when 

her answer included a jury demand and represents that she had paid the 

appropriate fee and (2) by refusing to abate the case based on her pretrial 

request for an abatement, which relied on a Center for Disease Control 

and Prevention form that was on file with the court. For the reasons 
2

explained below, we conclude Williamson’s issues lack merit, so we will 

affirm.

Background

In June 2006, Cristy Williamson and Dustin Woodcock bought a 

home in New Caney, Texas with the benefit of a loan, which was secured 

by the property with a deed of trust.1 Under the deed of trust, Williamson 

and Woodcock were required to “immediately surrender possession of the 

property to the purchaser” if the bank foreclosed and the property was 

sold at a foreclosure sale.

If the bank foreclosed, the deed of trust also explains what 

Williamson’s and Woodcock’s relationship with the owner of the property 

that purchased it in the foreclosure sale if they didn’t surrender the 

property before the bank foreclosed. As to the owner purchasing the 

property at foreclosure, the deed of trust provides that Williamson and 

Woodcock would become “tenant[]s at sufferance” as to their relationship 

with the party who purchased the property at foreclosure. As tenants at 

1Under the terms of the deed of trust, the lien on the property 

securing the note could be foreclosed only by a court order. In 2021, the 

bank that held Williamson’s and Woodcock’s mortgage obtained an order 

from the 284th District Court authorizing it to proceed with foreclosure 

through an order signed in July 2019. 
3

sufferance, the deed of trust required Williamson and Woodcock to pay 

“reasonable rental for the use of the Property.” Lastly, as tenants at 

sufferance, the deed of trust made Williamson and Woodcock subject to 

being removed from the property “by writ of possession in accordance 

with applicable law[.]” 

After Williamson and Woodcock defaulted on the payment 

obligations they had to their bank of their note, the trustee under the 

deed of trust—JP Morgan Chase Bank—foreclosed on its lien. JP Morgan 

Chase Bank purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. Several 

months later in February 2020, JP Morgan Chase Bank sold the property 

to Omkar Sharma. 

In July 2020, Sharma’s agent, Texas Eviction, notified Williamson, 

Woodcock, and the other occupants of 21615 Morris Street in a letter that 

they were required to vacate the property within thirty days based on the 

foreclosure.2 In September 2020, Sharma filed a forcible entry and 

detainer action in the Justice of the Peace Court, seeking to evict 

2The record reflects notice was sent to Cristy Williamson, Dustin 

Woodcock, and Doris Williamson. Dustin Woodcock and Doris 

Williamson are not parties to the appeal. 
4

Williamson, Woodcock, and all other occupants from the property on 

Morris Street in New Caney. 

After she was served, Williamson, who was represented by an 

attorney, filed an answer to Sharma’s forcible entry and detainer action 

in the Justice Court. Her answer includes a demand for a jury trial. The 

“Transcript Of Judgment From Justice Civil Court,” Precinct Number 4, 

shows that Williamson paid the jury fee. The answer Williamson filed in 

the justice court includes a request asking the Justice of the Peace to 

abate the case based on Texas Supreme Court Miscellaneous Order 20-

9109.3 With the answer she filed in the Justice Court, Williamson also 

filed a form containing the information required by the Center for 

Disease Control order referred to in Miscellaneous Order 20-9109, the 

CDC Order that addresses the halting of residential evictions on a 

3Miscellaneous Order 20-9109 refers to an order issued by the 

Center for Disease Control and Prevention, titled Temporary Halt in 

Residential Eviction to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19 (CDC 

Order), which the Texas Supreme Court required Texas courts to follow 

beginning September 4, 2020. See Supreme Court of Texas, Twenty-Fifth 

Emergency Order Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster, Misc. 

Docket No. 20-9109, 609 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. 2020).
5

temporary basis to prevent the further spread of COVID-19.4Williamson 

swore to the accuracy of the information that she included in the form. 

About five months later, Sharma filed a motion for summary 

judgment in the Justice Court on his eviction claim, arguing the only 

issue the court needed to determine was whether he was entitled to 

possession of the property.5 The Justice of the Peace granted Sharma’s 

motion, and the Justice of the Peace signed an order requiring 

Williamson, Woodcock, and the other occupants of the property to vacate 

the property by March 4 unless they timely filed an appeal. Before March 

4, Williamson appealed to the County Court at Law and perfected her 

right to a trial de novo in that court.6

In April 2021, the County Court at Law called the case to trial. In 

the County Court at Law, the parties tried the case on the pleadings they 

had filed in Justice Court. Those pleadings were filed in the County Court 

4Id. 5We note that in Sharma’s pleading of his forcible entry and 

detainer action, he did not sue Williamson or Woodcock for damages or 

for rent, he only sued for possession. 

6See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.001(a) (authorizing 

appeals from justice courts); Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 24.007 (West & West 

Supp.)(allowing an appeal in an eviction suit when the premises are used 

for residential purposes only).
6

at Law as part of Williamson’s appeal, and they appear in the County 

Clerk’s Record in a record marked as “Transcript of Documents Filed in 

Justice Court.” 

In opening statement, Williamson’s attorney told the trial court 

that his client had “filed a COVID CDC order back in September [with 

the Justice of the Peace] that ha[d] never been ruled on[.]” That said, 

when Williamson appeared in the County Court at Law, her attorney 

never indicated to the trial court that Williamson wanted a trial by a 

jury.7 Even though Sharma called no witnesses in the hearing, his 

attorney offered four exhibits into evidence, which were admitted into 

evidence without objection: (1) a copy of the Substitute Trustee’s Deed; 

(2) a certified copy of Williamson’s and Woodson’s note, titled “Texas 

Home Equity Security Instrument;” (3) a copy of Sharma’s deed; and (4) 

a business records affidavit,which contains a letter notifying Williamson, 

7We are unable to determine from the Clerk’s Record whether 

Williamson paid the jury fee in the County Court at Law. That said, the 

transcript of the Justice Court’s records shows Williamson paid a $22 

jury fee in the Justice Court. Additionally, the Appellate Record shows 

that Williamson filed statements in both the Justice Court and the 

County Court at Law declaring indigence and claiming she could not 

afford to pay court costs. 
7

Woodcock and the other occupants of the property they were to leave the 

premises and that if they didn’t, they would be evicted. 

When Sharma rested, Williamson’s attorney didn’t call any 

witnesses, and he didn’t introduce or offer any exhibits into evidence. 

Instead, Williamson’s attorney told the court: “If the court would state 

that judgment should be granted, we’d ask that, of course, we have ten 

days to post the bond and appeal this decision.” When trial concluded, 

the trial court found for Sharma, signed a judgment awarding Sharma 

possession of the property, and authorized a Writ of Possession to issue 

if Williamson, Woodcock, and the other occupants of the property had not 

vacated the premises by May 4, 2021. Subsequently, Williamson 

perfected her appealto this Court.

Jury Trial

In Williamson’s first issue, she argues the trial court abused its 

discretion by refusing to grant her request for a jury trial. We review a 

trial court’s denial of a party’s demand for a jury trial under an abuse of 

discretion standard.8 On appeal, Williamson argues that because the 

8Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v. Rhyne, 925 S.W.2d 664, 666 (Tex. 

1996).
8

County Court at Law treated the answer she filed in the Justice Court as 

her answer in the County Court at Law, the jury demand that she filed 

in the Justice Court preserved her right to a trial by jury in the County 

Court at Law. But as we mentioned, nothing in the record shows that 

Williamson’s attorney made the judge of the County Court at Law aware 

that his client wanted a jury trial. 

Litigants “must take certain steps to invoke and perfect [their] jury 

right” under the rules that apply to preserving error for an appeal.9 Just 

last year, the Texas Supreme Court explained that when “a trial court 

indicates that it will proceed with a bench trial in a case where a jury 

demand was timely perfected, a demanding party that still wishes to 

have a jury trial must ensure that the court is aware of the demand.”10

Previously, the Court has held that a party waives its right to a jury trial 

even if a jury demand has been filed and a jury fee paid when the party 

fails to obtain an adverse ruling from the trial court after pointing out 

that the party has demanded a jury trial.11

9In re Troy S. Poe Tr., 646 S.W.3d 771, 778 (Tex. 2022) (cleaned up).

10Browder v. Moree, 659 S.W.3d 421, 423 (Tex. 2022).

11Jefferson Cty. v. Nguyen, No. 09-13-00505-CV, 2015 Tex. App. 

LEXIS 8052, at *74 (Tex. App.—Beaumont July 31, 2015, no pet.) (citing 
9

In Williamson’s case, Williamson was notified by the County Court 

at Law on April 15, 2021, that the case would be tried in a bench 

proceeding on April 23. The record does not show that before the trial 

occurred, Williamson made the trial court aware she had a jury demand 

on file and that she wanted a jury trial. By failing to object after she was 

on notice that the trial court intended to try the case to the bench, 

Williamson failed to preserve her complaint that the trial court deprived 

her of her right to a jury.12 Williamson’s first issue is overruled. 

CDC Order

In issue two, Williamson complains the trial court erred in failing 

to abate the case based on her filing of the CDC form she filed in the 

Justice Court, which addresses the temporary halting of proceedings to 

prevent the spread of COVID-19.13 That said, the Texas Supreme Court 

order halting trials in eviction cases expired on March 31, 2021, so it 

Sunwest Reliance Acquisitions Group, Inc. v. Provident Nat’l Assur. Co.,

875 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993,no writ)). 12See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Sunwest Reliance Acquisitions Group,

Inc., 875 S.W.2d at 387. 13See Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the 

Further Spread of COVID-19, 85 Fed. Reg. 55292 (Sept. 4, 2020). 
10

didn’t prevent the County Court at Law from calling Williamson’s case to 

trial in April 2021.14

On appeal, Williamson complains the trial court didn’t make 

findings about the reasons the forcible entry and detainer action should 

proceed to trial, which we acknowledge is required under the Texas 

Supreme Court’s Thirty-Fourth Emergency Order, which allowed

Williamson’s trial to proceed.15 Yet Williamson didn’t ask the trial court 

for the findings required by the Thirty-Fourth Emergency Order—

specifically, the reasons the trial court determined the action should 

proceed and the procedures that applied to the action.16 Had she done so

when she was before that court, the trial court’s failure to make the 

findings required by the Thirty-Fourth Emergency Order could have been 

cured. 

Even more, when Williamson’s attorney told the County Court at 

Law that his client had filed the CDC form in the Justice Court, he said: 

“I only throw that in there because it’s not been ruled on. I don’t know if 

14See Supreme Court of Texas, Thirty-Fourth Emergency Order 

Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster, Misc. Docket No. 21-9011, 

629 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. 2021).

15Id. 16Id. 
11

it’s even relevant. I just throw it in there. I just add it to the record, Your 

Honor.” In response, Sharma’s attorney asserted the CDC declaration 

didn’t apply because he wasn’t seeking to evict Williamson or the 

occupants of Sharma’s property for nonpayment of rent, but instead 

because it was “a post-foreclosure eviction.” In response, the trial court 

stated: “I think he is definitely right on that.” Regardless of whether that 

conclusion is correct, Williamson failed to challenge the trial court’s 

conclusion in her appeal. 

First, we hold that Williamson didn’t challenge the trial court’s 

conclusion that Williamson’s eviction was not based on her failure to pay 

rent. When unchallenged, a trial court’s findings are binding on the 

reviewing court.17 Williamson has not argued, explained, or cited any 

legal authority that shows the trial court erred in concluding the CDC 

moratorium didn’t apply to the circumstances involved in her eviction, an 

eviction resulting from a foreclosure rather than one that involved a 

tenant’s eviction for failing to pay rent. And with the exception of cases 

17McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Tex. 1986). 
12

involving fundamental error, which did not occur here, appellate courts 

may not consider issues the parties did not properly raise or brief.18

Second, by failing to ask the trial court for findings, Williamson 

waived her complaint that the trial court didn’t provide her with the 

findings required by the Texas Supreme Court’s Thirty-Fourth 

Emergency Order.19 For all these reasons, Williamson’s second issue is 

overruled.

Conclusion

Having overruledWilliamson’s issues, the judgment of the County 

Court at Law is

AFFIRMED.

_________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on October 14, 2022

Opinion Delivered June 1, 2023

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

18See Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 577 (Tex. 2006) 

(citing In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 350-52 (Tex. 2003)).

19See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a) (preserving error for appellate review 

requires the complaining party to show that he presented his complaint 

to the trial court in a timely request, objection, or motion and that the 

trial court ruled on the request); Supreme Court of Texas, Thirty-Fourth 

Emergency Order Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster, Misc. 

Docket No. 21-9011, 629 S.W.3d 182.