### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

ON MOTION F OR REHEARING
NO. 03-13-00133- CV
Lisa Kastlem an, App ellant

v. Bryan Kastle m an, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 53RD J UDICIAL DI STRICT NO. D-1 -F M- 09- 0025 98, H ONO RAB LE O RLINDA NARANJO , JUDGE P RESIDING

S U P P L E M E N T A L O P I N I O N
I n her motion for rehe aring , L isa Kastleman argues that th i s C ourt err oneously dismiss ed her appea l as moot on the g round that she was estopped from appea ling the final divorce decr ee that was based on the parties’ settlement ag ree ment beca use she had acc epted the benef its of the decr ee. We issue this s u p p l emental opinion to clar ify our decision to deny the motion for r ehea ring
. I n her first issue, L isa contends that this Court should g rant rehe aring b ec au s e t h e amount of property she i s alleg ed to have acc epted is less that 4% of the total community estate. 1 I n re- urg ing arguments on this i s s u e p rese nted in her response to Br y an’s motion to dismiss and

L isa also clar ifies that the amount of re ntal income she a cce pted was just over 1% of the 1 value of the community estate, not 10%, as stated in her response to Br y an’s motion to dismiss and repe ated by

this Court i n our orig inal opinion.responding to our orig inal opinion, she also raises new arguments for the first time in her motion for

rehe aring
. L ikewise, in her second issue, L isa asser ts for the first time on rehe aring the alterna tive argument that even if she is estopped from appea ling the proper ty division, this Court should addre ss the seve rable pare nt-child and attorney ’s fe es issues.

Gene rally , we do no t b as e our ruling s on arguments raised for the first time on rehe aring
. W

ells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. L eath , 425 S.W .3d 525, 540 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, pet. filed) (supp. op. on reh’ g ); AVCO Corp. v. Interstate Sw., Ltd. , 251 S. W
. 3 d 6 3 2 , 6 76 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Di s t.] 2007, pet. denied) (supp. op. on reh’ g ); see Sherrod v. Moore , 819 S.W .2d 201, 205 (Tex. App.—Amar illo 199 1, no writ) (“I t is well established that points of
err or raised for the first time in a motion for rehe aring are too lat e an d will not be considere d.”) (citing Morrison v. Chan , 699 S.W .2d 205, 207 (Tex. 1985)). The sole purpose of a mo tion for rehe aring is to provide the court an oppo rt u n i t y t o corr ect any err ors on issues alre ady prese nted. W entworth v. Mey er , 839 S.W .2d 766, 778 (Tex. 1992) (Corny n, J ., concur

ring ). “‘Rehe aring is not
an o p p ortunity to test alternative arguments afte r finding other arguments unsucce ssful.’” OAIC Commercial Assets, L.L.C

. v. Stonegate Vill., L.P. , 234 S.W .3d 726, 746 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, p et
. denied) (op. on reh’ g ) (quoting ICM Mortg. Corp. v. Jacob , 902 S.W .2d 527, 535 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, writ denied) ). An issue adequately briefe d in a motion for rehe aring is waived if the orig inal brief—in this case the orig inal response to Br y an ’s motion to dismiss —“is not sufficie nt to acqua int the C ourt with the i ssue and does not prese n t an argument that would allow the court to decide the issue.” W heele r v. Methodist Hosp. , 95 S
. W .3d 628, 646 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).

2“A motion for rehe aring does not aff ord a party an o pportunity to raise new issues afte r the case has been briefe d, argued, and decide d on other g rounds unless th e er ro r i s fundame ntal.” OAIC , 234 S. W
. 3 d at 747; see Texas Mun. Pow er Agency v. Public Util. Comm’n of Tex. , 150 S.W .3d 579, 591 n.13 (Tex
. App.—Austin 2004), rev’d in part on other grds. , 253 S.W .3d 184 (Tex. 2007). Fundamental err o r exis ts “in those rar e instances in which the rec ord shows the court lacke d jurisdiction or that the public interest is direc tly and adver sely aff ecte d as that interest is decla

red in the statutes or the Constit ution of Texas.” Pirtle v. Gregory , 629 S.W .2d 919, 920 (Tex. 1982); see OAIC , 234 S.W .3d at 747; Texas Mun. Power , 150 S.W .3d at 591 n.13. I n her motion for rehe aring , L isa does not raise an i ssue of fundame ntal err or, and we decline to addre ss the new a rg uments she asser

ts for the fir st tim e in her

motion for rehe aring
. CONCLUSION We deny L isa’s motion for re hear ing.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose, and Goodwin Filed: Oc tober 23, 2014

3