 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mantell v. Testa8/17/2000
he court. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c). No oral hearing is required, no oral testimony is allowed, and no controverting evidence may be filed the day of the hearing without leave of court. See Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc., 989 S.W.2d 357 (Tex. 1998). Appellants have shown no error. Their first point of error is overruled.
Sufficiency of Notice
By their second point of error, appellants complain the trial court erred in hearing the motions without the requisite twenty-one days' notice. Specifically, they argue that fewer than twenty-one days elapsed from the reset notices of January 14, 1998, and January 19, 1998, to the summary judgment hearing date of January 30, 1998. Appellants did not file any objections to the reset date, or request a continuance based on insufficient notice.
Appellants' point of error is without merit. Appellants do not contend they did not receive timely notice under the original setting, but only that notice under the resetting was deficient. This court has previously held that the twenty-one day notice provision does not apply to resettings of a hearing, provided the non-movant receives twenty-one days' notice prior to the original setting. See Brown v. Capital Bank, N.A., 703 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Tex. App.--Houston [14 th Dist.] 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In the event of a resetting, "reasonable notice" is required, which this court has held to be not less than seven days, so that the non- movant may file any necessary responses within seven days of the hearing as required under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c). See LeNotre v. Cohen, 979 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. App.--Houston [14 th Dist.] 1998, review denied). The record shows that appellants received the required notices for both the original and the reset hearing dates. In any event, appellants would be required to allege they were harmed by any insufficient notice, which they have not done. In the absence of such harm, no reversible error is shown. See Martin, 989 S.W.2d at 359; Tivoli Corp. v. Jeweler's Mutual Insurance Co., 932 S.W.2d 704, 710 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, writ denied). Appellants' second point of error is overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment rendered and Opinion filed August 17, 2000.
Do Not Publish -- TEX. R. APP. P. 47.3(b).
|