law-error-preservation | preservation of error for appellate review |

ERROR PRESERVATION (FOR APPEAL)

To preserve error, a party must make the trial court aware of its complaint, timely and plainly,
and obtain a ruling.  In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 349 (Tex. 2003).  Where the party has
failed to do so, the complaint is waived.  Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Tex. R. Civ. P. 274.

To preserve objections to summary judgment evidence for appeal, a party asserting the objections
must obtain a ruling at or before the summary judgment hearing. “As a prerequisite to presenting a
complaint for appellate review, the record must show that . . . the complaint was made to the trial court
by a timely request, objection, or motion. . . .”  TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); see TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(f)
(stating, “Defects in the form of affidavits or attachments will not be grounds for reversal unless
specifically pointed out by objection by an opposing party with opportunity, but refusal, to amend”);
Hogan v. J. Higgins Trucking, Inc., 197 S.W.3d 879, 883 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); see also
McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 343 n.7 (Tex. 1993) (holding that all
issues must be expressly presented to trial court).  Summary judgment evidence must be presented in
a form that would be admissible at trial.  See, e.g., Vice v. Kasprzak, 318 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied).  If a party has objections to defects in the form of supporting
attachments, those objections must be made in writing and placed before the trial court, or the
objections will be waived.  See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(f); Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Vaughan,
792 S.W.2d 944, 945 (Tex.1990).  A party’s failure to secure a ruling on an objection also waives the
issue on appeal.  See, e.g., Vice, 318 S.W.3d at 11.

To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must present the issue to the trial court and
obtain an adverse ruling.  See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); GTE Mobilnet of S. Tex. Ltd. v. Pascouet, 61 S.
W.3d 599, 620 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (involving party who did not
demonstrate application of certain law to claims until party filed post-verdict motions, and thereby did
not preserve error because it failed to voice complaint to the trial court).  The record does not reflect
that the trial court or the jury considered any evidence of conduct by KS Management Services as
Smith now asserts on appeal.  We cannot reverse the trial court's judgment based on complaints that
Smith never raised at trial.  See Pascouet, 61 S.W.3d at 620.  Because Smith failed to preserve error
on her third issue, she has waived appellate review of this issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a);
Pascouet, 61 S.W.3d at 620.
Smith v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 6, 2009)(Frost)
(
workers compensation appeal by both sides, compensable injury)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by
Justice Frost  
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Brock Yates and Frost
14-08-00133-CV  Janice Smith v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company   
Appeal from 234th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge:
Reese Rondon

CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS  

HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE