appellant fails challenge in Texas

2020Consequently, “[i]f the appellant fails to challenge all possible grounds, we must accept the validity of the unchallenged grounds and affirm the adverse ruling.” Flakes, 547 S.W.3d at 314 (citing Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970)); Lodhi v. Haque, No. 04- 18-00917-CV, 2019 WL 5765787 , at *8 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 6, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). 9 8 In his argument supporting his first issue, Parsons maintains that his submitted evidence shows that the previously unchallenged child support orders entered by the Hunt and Williamson District Courts were void and,

2018To be sure, some of these opinions relied on Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier , 461 S.W.2d 119 (Tex. 1970), for the proposition that a summary judgment will be upheld if the appellant fails to challenge a ground upon which the motion *323 may have been granted, notwithstanding that Malooly was grounded in the abandoned "point of error" designation regime and pre-dates the amendments to our rules, thus depriving the appellant of the opportunity to address the issue after having been given notice and the opportunity to cure under rule 38.9. 10 Of course rule 38.9(b) makes no distinction between bri

2026See Heritage Gulf Coast Props., Ltd. v. Sandalwood Apartments, Inc., 416 S.W.3d 642, 653 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (“If the appellant fails to challenge all grounds on which the judgment may have been granted, the appellate court must uphold the . . . judgment.”); Deadmon v. Dall.

2026Because Haskett, on appeal, has not challenged all of the independent grounds supporting the trial court’s granting of SLMUD’s plea to the jurisdiction, we hold that the trial court did not err in granting SLVFD’s plea to the jurisdiction. 25 See Heritage Gulf Coast Props., 416 S.W.3d at 653 (“If the appellant fails to challenge all grounds on which the judgment may have been granted, the appellate court must uphold the . . . judgment.”); Deadmon, 347 S.W.3d at 445 (“When, as here, a trial court sustains a plea to the jurisdiction without specifying the grounds for doing so, an appellant must

2026See Star–Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1995); Jarvis v. Rocanville Corp., 298 S.W.3d 305, 313 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied); see also Britton v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim.

2024Star–Telegram, Inc., 915 S.W.2d at 473 ; Jarvis, 298 S.W.3d at 313 .

2019Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970); Heritage Gulf, 416 S.W.3d at 653 ; Bailey, 631 S.W.2d at 786 .

2011See Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier , 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970); Long v. Long , 196 S.W.3d 460, 468-69 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2006, no pet.); Bailey v. Rogers , 631 S.W.2d 784, 786 (Tex. App.--Austin 1982, no writ).

2022“If the appellant fails to challenge all grounds on which the judgment may have been granted, the appellate court must uphold the summary judgment.” Id. (citing Lewis, 979 S.W.2d at 833 ; Fields v. City of Tex. City, 864 S.W.2d 66, 68 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied)).

2013See Lewis, 979 S.W.2d at 833 ; Fields v. City of Texas City, 864 S.W.2d 66, 68 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied).

2015Corp., ___ S.W.3d ___, 2014 WL 6766688, *1 (Tex. App. – El Paso, Dec. 1, 2014, no pet. h.) (“If the appellant fails to challenge each ground on which summary judgment could have been granted, we must uphold the summary judgment on the unchallenged ground.”).

2015Corp., ___ S.W.3d ___, 2014 WL 6766688, *1 (Tex. App. – El Paso, Dec. 1, 2014, no pet. h.) (“If the appellant fails to challenge each ground on which summary judgment could have been granted, we must uphold the summary judgment on the unchallenged ground.”).

2014See Worldwide Asset Purchasing, LLC v. Rent–A–Center E., Inc., 290 S.W.3d 554, 569 (Tex. App.―Dallas 2009, no pet.).

2013Worldwide Asset, 290 S.W.3d at 569 .

2025“Generally, if an appellant fails to challenge all possible grounds for a trial court’s ruling, we must accept the validity of the unchallenged ground and affirm the adverse ruling.” Equistar Chems., LP v. ClydeUnion DB, Ltd., 579 S.W.3d 505, 512 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, pet. denied); see also Rivas v. Pitts, 684 S.W.3d 849 , 857 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2023, pet. granted); Hampton, 607 S.W.3d at 6.

2022“Generally, if an appellant fails to challenge all possible grounds for a trial court’s ruling, we must accept the validity of the unchallenged ground and affirm the adverse ruling.” Equistar Chems., LP v. ClydeUnion DB, Ltd., 579 S.W.3d 505, 512 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, pet. denied); accord, Oliphant Fin.

2017See Blackstone Med., Inc. v. Phoenix Surgicals, L.L.C., 470 S.W.3d 636, 650 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.); Britton v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676 , 681—82 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); see also In re N.L.D., 412 S.W.3d 810, 818 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.) (holding that when a parent failed to challenge on appeal a ground for termination of parental rights, the court could affirm on the unchallenged ground without examining the sufficiency of evidence to support challenged grounds); In re Elamex, S.A. de C.V., 367 S.W.3d 879, 888 (Tex. App.—El Paso

2017See Blackstone Med., Inc. v. Phoenix Surgicals, L.L.C. , 470 S.W.3d 636 , 650 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2015, no pet.) ; Britton v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice , 95 S.W.3d 676 , 681-82 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) ; see also In re N.L.D. , 412 S.W.3d 810 , 818 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2013, no pet.) (holding that when a parent failed to challenge on appeal a ground for termination of parental rights, the court could affirm on the unchallenged ground without examining the sufficiency of evidence to support challenged grounds); In re Elamex, S.A. de C.V. , 367 S.W.3d 879 , 888 (Tex. App.

2011Adams v. First Nat’l Bank of Bells/Savoy, 154 S.W.3d 859, 875 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.).

2011Adams v. First Nat’l Bank of Bells/Savoy, 154 S.W.3d 859, 875 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.).

2007Cole, 864 S.W.2d at 566 ; see also Ford v. Performance Aircraft Servs., Inc., 178 S.W.3d 330, 334 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied).

2007Cole , 864 S.W.2d at 566 ; see also Ford v. Performance Aircraft Servs., Inc. , 178 S.W.3d 330, 334 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied).

2026See Star–Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1995); Jarvis v. Rocanville Corp., 298 S.W.3d 305, 313 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied); see also Britton v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim.

2024Star–Telegram, Inc., 915 S.W.2d at 473 ; Jarvis, 298 S.W.3d at 313 .

2025See Heritage Gulf Coast Props., Ltd. v. Sandalwood Apartments, Inc., 416 S.W.3d 642, 653 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (“If the appellant fails to challenge all grounds on which the judgment may have been granted, the appellate court must uphold the summary judgment.”); Britton, 95 S.W.3d at 681–82 (“If summary judgment may have been rendered, properly or improperly, on a ground not challenged, the judgment must be affirmed.” (internal quotations omitted)).

2024See Oliphant Fin., 295 S.W.3d at 423–24; Britton, 95 S.W.3d at 681 ; see also In re A.K.P., No. 06-19-00075-CV, 2020 WL 465281 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Jan. 29, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“When an appellant fails to challenge an alternate basis for the appealed order, any error in the challenged basis for the order is rendered harmless.” (internal quotations omitted)).

2022“If the appellant fails to challenge all grounds on which the judgment may have been granted, the appellate court must uphold the summary judgment.” Id. (citing Lewis, 979 S.W.2d at 833 ; Fields v. City of Tex. City, 864 S.W.2d 66, 68 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied)).

2022“If the appellant fails to challenge all grounds on which the judgment may have been granted, the appellate court must uphold the summary judgment.” Id. (citing Lewis, 979 S.W.2d at 833 ; Fields v. City of Tex. City, 864 S.W.2d 66, 68 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied)).

2025Servs., Inc. v. DCT Hollister Rd, LLC, 574 S.W.3d 610, 621 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (“When, as in this case, the order granting summary judgment does not specify the grounds upon which the trial court relied, we must affirm if an appellant fails to challenge all grounds on which summary 18 judgment may have been granted . . . even if summary judgment may have been rendered improperly on the unchallenged ground.”).

2022Id. (citing Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970)); see McCrary v. Hightower, 513 4 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.).

2019Humphries, 339 S.W.3d at 208 ; see Berger, 2015 WL 3654555 , at *4 (affirming summary judgment based on unchallenged ground).

2017See Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970); Schuetz, 2016 WL 4628048 , at *6; Humphries v. Advanced Print Media, 339 S.W.3d 206, 208 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.).

2019See McKelvy v. Barber, 381 S.W.2d 59, 62 (Tex. 1964) (failure to address all grounds raised in directed-verdict motion waives complaint); Tijerina v. Wysong, No. 14-15-00188-CV, 2017 WL 506779 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 7, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.); Flo Trend Sys., Inc. v. Allwaste, Inc., 948 S.W.2d 4, 8 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ); Guynn v. Corpus Christi Bank & Trust, 589 S.W.2d 764, 770 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1979, no writ); McAx Sign Co. v. Royal Coach, Inc., 547 S.W.2d 368 , 369–70 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1977, no writ); see also Vawter v. Garvey, 786 S.W

2013Ellis, 68 S.W.3d at 898 .

2013Humane Society, 180 S.W.3d at 923 ; see also Hough, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 7200 , at *8.

2007Star-Telegram, 915 S.W.2d at 473 ; Humane Soc’y v. Dallas Morning News, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 921, 923 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.).

2024See Oliphant Fin., 295 S.W.3d at 423–24; Britton, 95 S.W.3d at 681 ; see also In re A.K.P., No. 06-19-00075-CV, 2020 WL 465281 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Jan. 29, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“When an appellant fails to challenge an alternate basis for the appealed order, any error in the challenged basis for the order is rendered harmless.” (internal quotations omitted)).

2023See Oliphant Fin., 295 S.W.3d at 423–24; Britton, 95 S.W.3d at 681 ; see also In re A.K.P., No. 06-19-00075-CV, 2020 WL op.) (where appellant filed supplemental brief raising issues not raised in his appellant’s brief, declining to consider those issues); Wilson v. State, 811 S.W.2d 700, 702 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref’d) (“A point of error raised for the first time in a supplemental brief is not properly presented for appellate review.”). 20 465281, at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Jan. 29, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“When an appellant fails to challenge an alternate basis for th

2021“If the appellant fails to challenge all grounds on which the judgment may have been granted, the appellate court must uphold the summary judgment.” Heritage Gulf Coast Props. v. Sandalwood Apartments, Inc., 416 S.W.3d 642, 653 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.); see also Williamson v. State Farm Lloyds, 76 S.W.3d 64, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.).

2019“If the appellant fails to challenge all grounds on which the judgment may have been granted, the appellate court must uphold the summary judgment.” Heritage Gulf Coast Props. v. Sandalwood Apartments Inc., 416 S.W.3d 642, 653 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.); see also Williamson v. State Farm Lloyds, 76 S.W.3d 64, 67 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.).

2021McCrary v. Hightower, 513 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.). 5 II.

2020Id. (citing Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970)); see McCrary v. Hightower, 513 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.).

2017See Blackstone Med., Inc. v. Phoenix Surgicals, L.L.C., 470 S.W.3d 636, 650 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.); Britton v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676 , 681—82 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); see also In re N.L.D., 412 S.W.3d 810, 818 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.) (holding that when a parent failed to challenge on appeal a ground for termination of parental rights, the court could affirm on the unchallenged ground without examining the sufficiency of evidence to support challenged grounds); In re Elamex, S.A. de C.V., 367 S.W.3d 879, 888 (Tex. App.—El Paso

2017See Blackstone Med., Inc. v. Phoenix Surgicals, L.L.C. , 470 S.W.3d 636 , 650 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2015, no pet.) ; Britton v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice , 95 S.W.3d 676 , 681-82 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) ; see also In re N.L.D. , 412 S.W.3d 810 , 818 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2013, no pet.) (holding that when a parent failed to challenge on appeal a ground for termination of parental rights, the court could affirm on the unchallenged ground without examining the sufficiency of evidence to support challenged grounds); In re Elamex, S.A. de C.V. , 367 S.W.3d 879 , 888 (Tex. App.

2015Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc.¸ 407 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tex. 2013); Puricelli v. Saxon Mortg.

2015ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES On appeal, a trial court’s summary judgment is reviewed de novo.8 When the trial court’s order granting summary judgment does not specify the grounds on which the court relied for its ruling, summary judgment will be affirmed on appeal if any theories advanced are meritorious.9 When an appellant fails to challenge a ground on which a trial court may have granted summary judgment—either properly or improperly, then summary judgment must be affirmed.10 Southwest Funding’s joinder in the other Appellees’ motion for summary judgment before the trial court was appropriate,

2021John Missionary Baptist Church v. Flakes, 595 S.W.3d 211 , 213 (Tex. 2020) (per curiam) (providing that if the appellant fails to challenge all possible grounds, the reviewing court must accept the validity of the unchallenged grounds and affirm the adverse ruling); U.S. Lawns, Inc. v. Castillo, 347 S.W.3d 844, 846 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2011, pet. denied); see also Perez-Montes v. Live Oak Constr., Inc., No. 13-13-00674-CV, 2015 WL 2352423 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg May 14, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“If an independent ground fully supports the complained-of ruling

2015This Court is unflinching: “If the appellant fails to challenge all possible grounds, we must affirm the judgment on the unchallenged ground.” U.S. Lawns, 347 S.W.3d at 847 .

2015Bank, 400 S.W.3d 139 (2013) Reasons for Decision 400 S.W.3d 139 If an appellant fails to challenge one of the Court of Appeals of Texas, grounds for summary judgment, an appellate Dallas. court may affirm the summary judgment on that ground alone.

2015Bank, 400 S.W.3d 139 (2013) Reasons for Decision 400 S.W.3d 139 If an appellant fails to challenge one of the Court of Appeals of Texas, grounds for summary judgment, an appellate Dallas. court may affirm the summary judgment on that ground alone.

2020Consequently, “[i]f the appellant fails to challenge all possible grounds, we must accept the validity of the unchallenged grounds and affirm the adverse ruling.” Flakes, 547 S.W.3d at 314 (citing Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970)); Lodhi v. Haque, No. 04- 18-00917-CV, 2019 WL 5765787 , at *8 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 6, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). 9 8 In his argument supporting his first issue, Parsons maintains that his submitted evidence shows that the previously unchallenged child support orders entered by the Hunt and Williamson District Courts were void and,

2020Consequently, “[i]f the appellant fails to challenge all possible grounds, we must accept the validity of the unchallenged grounds and affirm the adverse ruling.” Flakes, 547 S.W.3d at 314 (citing Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970)); Lodhi v. Haque, No. 04- 18-00917-CV, 2019 WL 5765787 , at *8 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 6, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). 9 8 In his argument supporting his first issue, Parsons maintains that his submitted evidence shows that the previously unchallenged child support orders entered by the Hunt and Williamson District Courts were void and,

2017See Blackstone Med., Inc. v. Phoenix Surgicals, L.L.C., 470 S.W.3d 636, 650 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.); Britton v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676 , 681—82 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); see also In re N.L.D., 412 S.W.3d 810, 818 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.) (holding that when a parent failed to challenge on appeal a ground for termination of parental rights, the court could affirm on the unchallenged ground without examining the sufficiency of evidence to support challenged grounds); In re Elamex, S.A. de C.V., 367 S.W.3d 879, 888 (Tex. App.—El Paso

2017See Blackstone Med., Inc. v. Phoenix Surgicals, L.L.C. , 470 S.W.3d 636 , 650 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2015, no pet.) ; Britton v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice , 95 S.W.3d 676 , 681-82 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) ; see also In re N.L.D. , 412 S.W.3d 810 , 818 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2013, no pet.) (holding that when a parent failed to challenge on appeal a ground for termination of parental rights, the court could affirm on the unchallenged ground without examining the sufficiency of evidence to support challenged grounds); In re Elamex, S.A. de C.V. , 367 S.W.3d 879 , 888 (Tex. App.