TBCblog

Comprehensive coverage of the Texas Business Court

Operated by

Reese Marketos LLP

Dallas, Texas  ·  Complex Commercial Litigation

← The Bench
Portrait of Hon. Brian Stagner

Hon. Brian Stagner

Judge · Seat 8B

Texas Business Court · Eighth Business Court Division (Fort Worth)

Biography

Judge Brian Stagner serves on the Texas Business Court for the Eighth Division, located in Fort Worth, Texas. Before his appointment to the bench, Judge Stagner practiced law for 27 years at Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP, where he served as partner and co-chair of the firm’s Litigation Practice Group. During this time, he handled complex business litigation in more than 40 states, representing clients on both sides of the docket. His practice included corporate governance disputes, unfair business practices, e-commerce, insurance coverage, taxation, consumer class actions, and intellectual property matters. Judge Stagner has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America® annually since 2010. In addition to his judicial duties, Judge Stagner is an adjunct professor at Texas Christian University, where he teaches Business Law. He is a former Barrister of the American Inns of Court and is a sustaining Life Fellow of the Texas Bar Foundation, as well as a Fellow of the Tarrant County Bar Foundation. Judge Stagner earned his law degree, summa cum laude, from Texas Tech University School of Law, where he served on the Law Review and was named to the Order of the Coif. He also holds a Bachelor of Business Administration in Management from Angelo State University. Judge Stagner and his wife, Amy, have been happily married for 30 years and are proud parents of two daughters, Claire and Katie.

Source: txcourts.gov

Opinions by Judge Stagner (1)

Put Right Exercise ×
2026 Tex. Bus. 22 Summary Judgment May 06, 2026

Contractual Obligations Are 'Payable' at Maturity Regardless of Available Funds, Triggering Put-Right Remedy

In The Mark at Weatherford Owner v. German, Division 8 granted summary judgment holding that acquisition fees contractually due at closing were legally "payable" even when insufficient funds existed to satisfy them, and that defendants' failure to remit those fees constituted a material default triggering plaintiff's put-right provision in a $4.7 million seller-financed real estate transaction. The court rejected defendants' argument that lack of liquidity excused performance, holding that "[a] contractual obligation does not evaporate simply because the obligor lacks liquidity."

Mem. Op. Summary Judgment Real Estate Contract Interpretation Put Rights Seller Financing Opinion PDF ↓