"[A]n appellant must challenge all independent grounds supporting the judgment or legal conclusion under attack." Akhtar v. Leawood HOA, Inc., 525 S.W.3d 814, 819 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist] 2017, no pet.); see Oliphant Fin. LLC v. Angiano, 295 S.W.3d 422, 423 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.) ("An appellant must attack all independent bases or grounds that fully support a complained of ruling or judgment."). "Any error in the challenged basis for the order is rendered harmless where there is an unchallenged, alternate basis for the appealed order."
Generally, an appellant must attack all independent grounds that fully support a complained-of ruling or judgment. Akhtar v. Leawood HOA, Inc., 525 S.W.3d 814, 819 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.); Speck v. Dry Bones Coffee House, No. 01-09-00605-CV, 2009 WL 4358039, at *3 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 3, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.).
The rule that an appellant must attack all independent grounds supporting an order or judgment has been applied in many contexts, including judgments awarding monetary sanctions. See Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970) (summary judgment must be challenged on all independent grounds); Akhtar v. Leawood HOA, Inc., 525 S.W.3d 814, 819 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (award of monetary sanctions must be challenged on all independent grounds stated in order or judgment). Appellants claim the trial court did not impose sanctions on the basis of spoliation, relying on the trial court's e-mail, which made no mention of spoliation.
Because each of the asserted grounds for dismissal and an award of attorney's fees and costs independently support affirming the applicable portion of the trial court's order, we limit our review to Stacey's fourth and sixth issues that address the trial court's dismissal of her petition under its inherent authority in the context of the pretrial procedure for bills of review and the part of her seventh issue that challenges the trial court's award of attorney's fees as a sanction.See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1; Poff v. Guzman, 532 S.W.3d 867, 869 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (addressing only one of issues that challenged "each of the bases upon which the trial court dismissed suit" because it was dispositive of appeal); see also Akhtar v. Leawood HOA, Inc., 525 S.W.3d 814, 820 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) ("[A]n appellant must challenge all independent grounds supporting the judgment or legal conclusion under attack." (citation omitted)); Brager v. James, No. 02-13-00130-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 1689, at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 13, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (explaining that dismissal will be affirmed on appeal if any theory advanced in motion supports dismissal); Riley v. Cohen, No. 03-08-00285-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 1162, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 19, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (explaining that party must challenge each of alternative grounds supporting judgment); Britton v. Texas Dep't of Crim. Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676, 681 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) ("Generally speaking, an appellant must attack all independent bases or grounds that fully support a complained-of ruling or judgment.").
As an initial matter, the Judicial Defendants, Dobbs, and the FBISD Defendants argue that the Parents and the Attorneys have waived their specificity complaint because it was not raised in the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1 ; Akhtar v. Leawood HOA, Inc. , 525 S.W.3d 814, 820 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (holding that appellant waived complaint that sanctions order violated section 10.005 by not first making the complaint in the trial court); Kamel v. AdvoCare Int'l, L.P. , No. 05-16-00433-CV, 2017 WL 1149669, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 28, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same). These appellees point out that although the Parents and the Attorneys filed a motion for new trial, or, in the alternative, a motion to modify the judgment, and a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, they did not object to any lack of specificity in the orders granting sanctions.
If they do not, then this Court must affirm the ruling or judgment. Britton, 95 S.W.3d at 681; see also Akhtar v. Leawood HOA, Inc., 525 S.W.3d 814, 819 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (claimed error in challenged order is rendered harmless where unchallenged, alternate basis supports appealed order).
An appellant "must challenge all independent grounds supporting the judgment or legal conclusion under attack." Akhtar v. Leawood HOA, Inc., 525 S.W.3d 814, 819 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (citing Estate of Purgason v. Good, No. 14-14-00334-CV, 2016 WL 552149, at *1-2 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 11, 2016, pet. denied)
To preserve error for appellate review, appellants had to present their complaint to the trial court by a motion to amend or correct the judgment, a motion for new trial, or some other similar method. Akhtar v. Leawood HOA, Inc., 525 S.W.3d 814, 820 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.). Appellants filed a timely motion for reconsideration, challenging the trial court's order striking their pleadings.
"[A]n appellant must challenge all independent grounds supporting the judgment or legal conclusion under attack." Akhtar v. Leawood HOA, Inc., 525 S.W.3d 814, 819 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.); see Oliphant Fin. LLC v. Angiano, 295 S.W.3d 422, 423 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.) ("An appellant must attack all independent bases or grounds that fully support a complained of ruling or judgment.").
SeeCox , 2021 WL 4055487, at *13 (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1 ; Sanchez v. Fiedler , No. 03-14-00182-CV, 2016 WL 4272111, at *9 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 11, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ; ( Werley v. Cannon , 344 S.W.3d 527, 535 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, no pet.) ; Akhtar v. Leawood HOA, Inc. , 525 S.W.3d 814, 820–21 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) )). Manning also states, in a conclusory manner, that the sanction was excessive, but he failed to make any meaningful challenge to the amount of attorney fees awarded at the motion for new trial hearing or on appeal.