Opinion ID: 1746247
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Grounds Unclear from Motion

Text: An exception is required should a non-movant wish to complain on appeal that the grounds relied on by the movant were unclear or ambiguous. See Lochabay v. Southwestern Bell Media, Inc., 828 S.W.2d 167, 170 n. 2 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, no writ) (Lochabay did not except to the motion for summary judgment, as he was required to do if he wished to claim lack of specificity.). Prudent trial practice dictates that such an exception should be lodged to ensure that the parties, as well as the trial court, are focused on the same grounds. [6] This prevents the non-movant from having to argue on appeal each and every ground vaguely referred to in the motion. The practical effect of failure to except is that the non-movant loses his right to have the grounds for summary judgment narrowly focused, thereby running the risk of having an appellate court determine the grounds it believes were expressly presented in the summary judgment. Even in this situation, however, [a]n appellate court cannot `read between the lines, infer or glean from the pleadings or the proof' any grounds for granting the summary judgment other than those grounds expressly set forth before the trial court [in the motion for summary judgment]. Clark v. First National Bank of Highlands, 794 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ) (quoting Great-Ness Professional Serv., Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank of Louisville, 704 S.W.2d 916, 918 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ)).