Viscount David Cahal of Ir Express Trust and Victoria O'Brien, in Her Lawful Capacity as Trustee v. Rocket Mortgage LLC D/B/A Rocket Loans

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-26-00469-CV

___________________________

VISCOUNT DAVID CAHAL OF IR EXPRESS TRUST AND VICTORIA O’BRIEN, IN HER LAWFUL CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE, Appellants

V.

ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC D/B/A ROCKET LOANS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 67th District Court Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 67-373797-26

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Victoria O’Brien, acting pro se, attempts to appeal the trial court’s

“Order Granting Rocket Mortgage, LLC’s Plea to the Jurisdiction.” O’Brien filed the

pro se notice of appeal on behalf of Appellant Viscount David Cahal of Ir Express

Trust and on behalf of herself “in her lawful capacity as Trustee.”

But a trust cannot appear in court through a trustee or other representative of

the trust who is not a licensed attorney. See Lorie Bernice Sharpe Tr. v. Phung,

622 S.W.3d 929, 929–30 (Tex. App.—Austin 2021, no pet.). And a trustee may not

appear pro se in her representative capacity as a trustee of a trust.1 Id. at 929; see In re

Guetersloh, 326 S.W.3d 737, 739–40 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010, orig. proceeding)

(holding that trustee may not appear pro se in representative capacity as trustee of

trust). Our records reflect that O’Brien is not an attorney.

We sent O’Brien a letter informing her that we had received a copy of her

notice of appeal and notifying her of our concern that she could not appear pro se in

her representative capacity as a trustee of the trust because she is not an attorney. We

warned O’Brien that this appeal could be dismissed unless an attorney filed a notice of

appearance for appellants with this court by August 13, 2026. See Tex. R. App.

1 We note that Rule 7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure permits a person to represent herself pro se only to litigate rights on her own behalf—not to litigate rights in a representative capacity. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 7; Kaminetzky v. Newman, No. 01-10- 01113-CV, 2011 WL 6938536, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 29, 2011, no pet.) (concluding appellant could not represent pro se two corporate defendants as assignee of corporations).

3

P. 42.3(b), (c). O’Brien filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing

the appeal.2 And no attorney has filed a notice of appearance or an amended notice

of appeal.

Accordingly, because O’Brien—a nonattorney trustee—cannot represent

Viscount David Cahal of Ir Express Trust, and no attorney has filed a notice of

appearance or an amended notice of appeal, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.3(b), (c).

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker Justice

Delivered: September 1, 2026

2 O’Brien argues that the “terms of Viscount David Cahal of Ir Express Trust do not mandate representation from a licensed attorney in any court in the state of Texas.” But Texas law—irrespective of the trust’s terms—permits only a licensed attorney to represent other parties. See Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 81.101–.102 (prohibiting practice of law in Texas unless person is member of state bar); id. §§ 83.001–.006 (prohibiting unlicensed persons from practicing law without a license); see also 1 Fox 2 Prods., LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 03-20-00101-CV, 2021 WL 81865, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 7, 2021, no pet.) (dismissing corporate appellant’s issues raised in brief because LLC’s owner could not represent entity pro se); Jimison v. Mann, 957 S.W.2d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1997, order) (striking documents filed by layperson having no authority to file them on behalf of another). The Texas Legislature has defined the practice of law to include, among other things, “the preparation of a pleading or other document incident to an action.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 81.101(a). Consequently, if a nonattorney files documents on behalf of a trust in an appeal, this amounts to the unauthorized practice of law. See Guetersloh, 326 S.W.3d at 740 (concluding nonattorney’s appearance in trial court on behalf of trust amounted to unauthorized practice of law).