Opinion ID: 2831391
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Key’s Failure to Oppose Rehearing

Text: After the Hegars filed a motion for rehearing, the court of appeals requested a response from Key. Key did not file one. The Hegars assert that the arguments Key raises in this Court should have been briefed in opposition to their motion for rehearing, and the arguments are waived because Key did not do so. We disagree. An issue raised in this Court must have been assigned as error in the court of appeals if it originated in the trial court. TEX . R. APP . P. 53.2(f). The Hegars do not assert that Key failed to present its issues to the trial court and the court of appeals on original submission there. Further, the Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that a motion for rehearing is not a prerequisite to filing a petition for review in this Court, nor is it required to preserve error. TEX . R. 4 APP . P. 49.9; see Bunton v. Bentley, 153 S.W.3d 50, 53 (Tex. 2004) (“A complaint that arises from the court of appeals’ judgment itself, however, may be raised either in a motion for rehearing in the court of appeals or in a petition for review in this Court.” (emphasis added)). The Rules of Appellate Procedure do not require a response to a motion for rehearing on pain of waiving the right to challenge the appellate court’s judgment, and neither do we. Key did not waive its right to petition this Court for review of the court of appeals’ judgment, so we turn to its arguments on the merits.