### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 23
- 00059
- CV
Philip Alan Gentry , Appellant

v. Pleasant View PLNDV TX , Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY NO. 22CCV01470 , THE HONORABLE PAUL A. MOTZ , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Philip Alan Gentry appeals the judgment ordering him to vac ate a rented space in

a mobile

- home park and to pay back rent and attorney ’ s fees to Pleasant View PLNDV TX. We will affirm the judgment. Gentry mov ed int o a home in Pleasant View ’ s park in 2010. Evidence included a

one- year lease signed by Gentry effective September 1, 201 7; Gentry denied signing a 2017 lease and said he signed a lease in 2019, but no 2019 lease is in the re cord before us

. When the 2017 l e ase ’ s one - year term elapsed on August 31, 2018, the tenancy converted to month

- to

month. Under the 2017 lease, Pleasant View ha d to give Gentry 60 days ’ notice it was terminat ing the lease during the month

- to -month period. Pleasant View sent Gentry a No tic e to Terminate Tenancy dated June 28, 2022

. Pleasant View ’ s representative said she put the notice on Gentry ’ s doo r— the record includes a photo of something that she testified was the notice attached to a door

— and sent se rvice by2 certified mail , whic h Gentry declined on July 5, 2022. Af ter setting out the relevant terms of the lease, the notice states that “ the Landlord has e lected to terminate your tenancy effective August 31, 2022. ” It then state s , “ If you fail to vac a te the Pre mises on or before 11 :59 P M Wednesday, August 31, 2022 , Landlord will file a forcible entry and detainer suit against you to evict you from the Premises. ” Pleasant View filed a n “ eviction case ” in justice court by petition dated September 7, 2022 , st ating grounds for evic t io n as “ Non Renewal ” and stating that notice to vacate had been hand- delivered and sent by certified mail on June 28, 2022. Pleasant View did not seek back rent

. Th e justice court signed a n Eviction Judg ment dated September 22, 2022, that awarded $154 in c ourt costs. Gentry appealed to the county court at law , and Pleasant View filed an amended petition seeking back rent accrued after August 31, 2022. After a hearing, the coun ty court rendered ju dgment for Pleas ant View, concluding that it was entitled t o possession of the property and awarding it $1, 837.39 in back rent, $2 , 500 in attorneys fees, and $154 in
court costs. Gentry appeals, filing a pro se brief that does not assign errors by the trial court. H e recounts his struggles getting his rent p ay m ents to Pleasant View beginning in February 2022— a peri od for which Pleasant View did not seek or recover back rent. H e also discuss es interactions with Pleasant View personnel that occurred after the hearing and j udgment at the county court ; these int er actions are beyond the scope of our review. Our role in the judicial
sys tem is largely to review complaints about trial courts ’ rulings , orders, and omissions that led to the judgment complained of ; we conduct this review based o n the pleadings, evidenc e, an d issues raised by the parties that were presented to th e trial court when it made its decisions and3 rendered judgment

. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1 ; see also, e.g. , Perry Homes v. Cull , 258 S.W.3d 580, 59 6 n.89 (Tex. 2008)

. Although we constru e pro se bri efs liberally, pro se appellants are held to the same standards as appellants represented by counsel to avoid giving them an unfair advantage. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn , 573 S.W.2d 181, 184

- 85 (Tex. 1978)

. Reading Gentry ’s brief libera lly, we c ons ider his complaints to challenge the sufficiency o f t he evidence to support the judgment. In conducting a sufficiency review, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the challenged findings and indulge every re asonable inference that s uppor ts them. U

niv ersity Gen. Hosp., L.P. v. Prexus Health Consultants, LLC , 403 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist. ] 2013, no pet.). The evidence is legally sufficient if it would enable reasonable and fair

- minded people to reach the decision under review. Id

. a t 551. We credit favorable evidence if a reasonable factfinder could and disregard contrary evidence unless a reasonable fact finder could not. Id

. In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the entire record, co nside ring both the evidence in favor of and contrary to the challenged findings. See Mar itime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis , 971 S.W.2d 402, 406

- 07 (Tex. 1998); Cain v. Bain , 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). We may set aside the challenged finding for factual ly ins ufficient evidence only if it is so contrary to th e overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Ellis , 971 S.W.2d at 407. The county cour t heard testimony and admitted evidence that Pleasant View provide d 67 days ’ notice o f term ination of the le ase and that it inten ded to seek evic tion if Gentry did not timely vacate the premises. The court also heard Gentry ’s denial that he received that notice.4 To the extent th at Gen try ’ s complaints on appeal concern back rent for the period after the notice of term ination and before the ju dgment , we conclude th a t the record contain s evidence that support ed the county court ’ s finding and judgment that Gentry owed $ 1,837 in back rent. Pleasant View ’ s representative testified abou t the r ent , a nd the county court admitted

a summ ary of Pleasant View ’ s log for accounts receivable from Gen try. The county court heard testimony from Gentry disput ing Pleasant View ’ s evidence , including t estimony that he had
t endered payments that Pleasant View did no t accept because of the pending litigation

. Th e county court was empowered to find Pleasant View ’s evidence that Gentry owed back rent and received timely notice of termination and imp ending evi ction more credible than Gentry ’s evidence that he did not. S ee Nel son v. Najm , 127 S.W.3d 170, 174 (Tex. A pp.

— Houston [ 1st Dist.] 2003 , pet. denied) ( trial court as fact finder in bench trial is sole judge of the witnesses ’ s credibility )

. W e may not pass on the credibility of the witnesses or substitute our judgmen t for that of the factfinder. George J oseph Assets, LLC v. Chenevert , 557 S.W.3d 755, 765 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 4th Dist. ] 2018 , pet. denied)

. V ie wing the evi dence in the light required by law, w e conclude that the record contains legally and fact ually su fficient evid ence to support the court ’ s ju dgment

. We affirm the trial court ’ s judgment.

__________________________________________ Darl ene Byrn e , Chief Justice Before Chief Justice By rne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis Affirmed Filed: February 27, 2024