Court Opinion

ID: 9778267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:57:35.151669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:06.277685
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In her motion for rehearing Clendennen contends that we erred in affirming the summary judgment because both the trial court and this court failed to consider her request for a continuance for the purpose of amending her defective response to the motions for summary judgment.
Clendennen, however, did not raise or argue this contention in her brief in this appeal. Moreover, if a defect in a summary judgment affidavit is one of substance, as it is in this ease, the court is not required to provide an opportunity to amend it. Bell v. Moores, 832 S.W.2d 749, 755 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied); De los Santos v. Southwest Texas Methodist Hosp., 802 S.W.2d 749 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1990, no writ); see also Elam v. Yale Clinic, 783 S.W.2d 638, 643 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no writ).
The motion for rehearing is overruled.