TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-24-00677-CV
Heather Godwin, Appellant
v.
Yolanda Brammer, Appellee
FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-GN-24-004818, THE HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Heather Godwin, a Texas attorney appearing pro se, challenges the trial court’s
order granting Yolanda Brammer’s motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 91a. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a. (dismissal of baseless causes of action). We will affirm.
BACKGROUND
Godwin came into contact with Brammer in June 2022, when Brammer leased a
rental home to her on a month-to-month basis. When Godwin stopped paying rent in the summer
of 2024, Brammer served a notice to vacate and an eviction pleading in JP court. Godwin then
filed a petition alleging Brammer was one in a line of conspirators in a sexual trafficking venture
against her dating back over thirty years. She alleged Brammer joined a venture trafficking nude
video of Godwin to provide online masturbatory aid services and Brammer received increased business to her tow truck company and benefitted from participating in the venture in violation of
section 98.002(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
She also alleged, as a negligence claim, that Brammer would not allow Godwin to
correct a security vulnerability by fixing the patio door; Brammer knew Godwin was the subject
of a criminal venture to coerce video surveillance of Godwin; and the venture obtained access to
Godwin’s residence by the security vulnerability.
Godwin asked for damages and a temporary restraining order to prevent eviction.
Brammer filed an answer, Rule 91a motion for dismissal, and Rule 13 motion for sanctions. After
a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting both motions in favor of Brammer. Godwin
appeals the Rule 91a dismissal.
ANALYSIS
Godwin argues that the trial court erred when it dismissed the case because she had
alleged facts supporting the trafficking and/or negligence claims.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a allows a party, with exceptions not applicable
here, to “move to dismiss a cause of action on the grounds that it has no basis in law or fact.” Tex.
R. Civ. P. 91a.1. “A cause of action has no basis in law if the allegations, taken as true, together
with inferences reasonably drawn from them, do not entitle the claimant to the relief sought.” Id.
“A cause of action has no basis in fact if no reasonable person could believe the facts pleaded.”
Id. “We review the merits of a Rule 91a motion de novo because the availability of a remedy
under the facts alleged is a question of law and the rule’s factual-plausibility standard is akin to a
legal-sufficiency review.” City of Dallas v. Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Tex. 2016)
(per curiam).
2
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 98.002(a) provides: “A defendant
who engages in the trafficking of persons or who intentionally or knowingly benefits from
participating in a venture that traffics another person is liable to the person trafficked, as provided
by this chapter, for damages arising from the trafficking of that person by the defendant or
venture.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 98.002(a). The common-law doctrine of negligence
consists of three elements: duty on the part of one person to another; breach of that legal duty; and
injury to the person to whom the duty is owed as a proximate result of the breach. Aldaco v. Wood,
740 S.W.3d 521, 527 (Tex. 2026).
In her brief, Godwin summarized the alleged facts that, taken as true, she argues
entitle her to relief under the civil trafficking statute and negligence cause of action: Brammer
contacted Godwin and enticed her into renting a home from her by offering a secure environment
and assistance. She harbored Godwin in the residence and refused to fix any security devices on
the home. She was aware that Godwin was being trafficked and maintained her in a trafficking
environment through “coercion of retaliatory eviction,” which she eventually did when Godwin
began covering herself up in the home. The retaliatory eviction exposed Godwin to ridicule and
harm to her credit and reputation.
Viewed in context of the complete factual rendition in her live petition, “no
reasonable person could believe the facts pleaded.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a.1. In her petition, Godwin
alleges that Brammer is just one more on a list of exploiters that started with her own father, and
has gone on to include a military boyfriend, a restaurateur, a husband, many former landlords, as
well as complicit lawyers, musicians, and police officers. Among the complaints about landlords:
3
• Kevin Walter rented her a room; she received hints on her music service that the home was
being watched. Godwin climbed into the attic and saw AV wire stretched from ceiling
fixture to ceiling fixture.
• Witham Apartments rented her an apartment; social media posts revealed to Godwin that
she was still being watched through cameras.
• Mary Sanchez rented her a duplex in Lockhart; it became clear from social media posts to
Godwin that she was still being recorded. Godwin hung a tablecloth from swag hooks
above her bed. Holes appeared in the ceiling. Godwin filled them with toothpaste.
• HI One Austin LLC rented her a room; Jack Doe, an unknown person, drilled holes through
the floor of the unit above which provided access for the procurement of video of Godwin
and she again filled the holes with toothpaste.
• Kelly Collenborn lived in a duplex with a vacant side. Godwin signed a lease with the
landlord; Godwin’s access to the attic was locked on her side. Godwin purchased a hidden
camera detector. When activated, it showed a recording device in the ceiling fan.
• Godwin sublet an apartment in New Orleans; a device was on the wall above her bed.
• River Oaks, LLC rented her an apartment. The first time she used a mirror in front of a
mirror to view herself her phone immediately started flashing its LED light and sounding
an alarm. Godwin does not use the flashing LED light on her phone, which informed her
that whoever hacked her phone to create the flashing LED and alarm was watching her in
real time.
After a de novo review, we hold that, in context, Godwin’s factual allegations do not meet the
factual-plausibility standard.1 Because Godwin’s allegations against Brammer could not be
believed by a reasonable person, they were properly dismissed as having no basis in fact. See
Salazar v. HEB Grocery Co., LP, No. 04–16–00734–CV, 2018 WL 1610942, at *5 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio Apr. 4, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (because no reasonable person could believe
allegations in Sanchez’s pleadings—that HEB and Wal-Mart managers entered into civil
1 Complaints against some of the alleged traffickers—all alleged as part of the three-decade
enterprise to traffic pornography of Godwin—have been dismissed in federal court. See Godwin v. CPF River Oaks Aus., LLC, et al., No. 1:23-CV-1566-DII (W.D. Tex. dismissed May 28, 2024) (citing Godwin v. Godwin, et al., No. 1:23-CV-1566-DII (W.D. Tex. dismissed Feb. 5, 2024)).
4
conspiracy with each other to harass and threaten Salazar—trial court did not err in granting the
Rule 91a motions to dismiss conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting claims).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s order.
Chari L. Kelly, Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Ellis
Affirmed
Filed: October 23, 2026
5