law-preservation-of-error-evidentiary-matters | objections to evidence | error preservation for appeal
harmful error analysis |

Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1) (requiring that, to preserve error for appeal, the record must reflect that
“the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection or motion”).


Ulogo v. Villanueva, 177 S.W.3d 496, 501 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (explaining
that to preserve a complaint on appeal regarding a trial court’s erroneous exclusion of evidence, the
complaining party must have offered the evidence during trial and obtained an adverse ruling from
the trial court); see also In re N.R.C., 94 S.W.3d 799, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002,
pet. denied) (citing Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2) and noting that “to adequately and effectively preserve
error” regarding the erroneous exclusion of evidence, a party must make an offer of proof with
sufficient specificity that a reviewing court may determine the admissibility of the evidence).

Although the appellees objected below and on appeal that Hellmold's expert report was inadmissible hearsay,
as noted above, the appellees did not obtain a ruling on that objection; therefore, this objection is not
preserved for our review.  See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Chapman Children's Trust, 32 S.W.2d at 436 n.4
(noting that “mother hubbard clause" in final judgment did not effectively overrule objections to affidavit and
therefore hearsay objections were not preserved for review).  Therefore, the report remains a part of the
summary-judgment evidence.  See Wright v. Greenberg, 2 S.W.3d 666, 676 (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.]
1999, pet. denied).
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Stanley (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Sep. 15, 2009)(Brown)
(creditor's fiduciary duty claim against director) (Delaware law applied)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by
Justice Brown    
Before Justices Seymore, Brown and Sullivan   
14-08-00567-CV  U.S. Bank National Association, a National Banking Association, as Liquidating Trustee v.
John R. Stanley, Walter S. Piontek, Ted E. Davis, Ronald H. Benson, R. Gerald Bennett, and John Does I-X   
Appeal from 133rd District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge:

By failing to object, and by objecting but providing no ground for the objection, or by not requesting further
relief when the court sustained his objections, Askari has not preserved the errors of which he complains in
issue three.  See Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(1) (“Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits . . .
evidence unless . . . a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of
objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context."); Tex. R. App. P. 33.1 (stating, as
prerequisite to presenting complaint for appellate review, record must show complaint was made to trial court
by timely request, objection, or motion that stated grounds for ruling that complaining party sought from trial
court with sufficient specificity to make trial court aware of complaint, unless the specific grounds were
apparent from context); One Call Sys., Inc. v. Houston Lighting & Power, 936 S.W.2d 673, 677 (Tex. App.-
Houston [14th Dist] 1996, writ denied) (holding plaintiff waived its objection to inadmissible testimony by failing
to request further relief after trial court sustained its objection).
Askari v. Endevco, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jul. 2, 2009)(breach of contract for consulting services
claim, payment in stock,
court sustained both parties' objections to parol evidence, applicability of parol
evidence rule, ambiguous and unambiguous contract provisions, preservation of error regarding evidentiary
AFFIRMED: Opinion by
Justice Seymore     
Before Justice Seymore   
14-08-00278-CV Farzad Askari v. Endevco, Inc.   
Appeal from 11th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge:
Mark Davidson
We also note the appellate record does not indicate that Askari presented an offer of proof or bill of
relative to the excluded evidence.  See Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2) (regarding preservation of error
related to ruling excluding evidence).

An objection to proffered evidence must be specific. Tex. R. Evid. 103. A general objection to evidence as a
whole, which does not point out specifically the portion objected to, is properly overruled if any part of that
evidence is admissible. Speier v. Webster College, 616 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Tex. 1981); Brown & Root, Inc. v.
Haddad, 142 Tex. 624, 180 S.W.2d 339, 341 (1944); Tex. Mun. Power Agency v. Berger, 600 S.W.2d 850,
854 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, no writ).
Lawrence v. Geico (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jul. 2, 2009)(Sharp)
(car wreck,
subrogation claim in car collision, SoL, diligence in procuring service on defendant, admission of
evidence, police report, requirements for proper evidentiary objection, specificity, hearsay objection)    
Justice Sharp     
Before Justices Taft, Bland and Sharp   
01-07-00873-CV  Jonathan A. Lawrence v. Geico General Insurance Company, as Subrogee   
Appeal from the 405th District Court of Galveston County
Trial Court Judge:  Hon. Wayne J. Mallia