Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment without providing the appellant the required 10-day notice

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED fag LT. TAS Covet syouLp REVERSE THE FINAL iv TUDGMENT EWTERED On LOpE2S’MoTIOW FOR SUMMARY TUDEMENT BECAUSE THE . TRIAL covieT DiD POT PROVIDE THE AppELLAWT THE (10) TER DAY NOTICE THAT / 7 Was cousiDERIVG Summaey TUDImMEWT IN THIS CASE. THIS WO) DAY AD VAWCE NOTICE 1S A BRIGHT LINE RULE THAT REQUIRED AWD com PULSELY [VOTIC E THAT 1S MAY 0A TORY AND LEAVES L4,TTIE OR WMO Room FoR vary ine LUTER PRETATION, JTS Corn PULsoRY IW APPELLAWT'S FAVOR BECAUSE HENS THE PROPERTY ownge PAID IM Full siMCE MARCH of 199? AMD THE . / Apreller Lepet AMD His WiFE/PALTMER Were TOLD ee ce [> x : > ” HE™ A vem BE Ia of D\FFERENT OCCASIONS WHEN T i ; TH RTY PosiInG AS RENTERS pve TV oo wevlD SToP BY THE PRO PE A PLACE| THE FRowt YARD al APPELLAWT's FOR REM sie AUR i — 2 lM EW . THs coueT SHOUD Reverse THE |=IvAL TUbGEme a . me RED OW LOPEZ'S MOTION FoR SUMMARY Tu GMENT = TE : ~ im ” 7 7 7 =e THERE ARE DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 45 T? THE Becays® mAcrs THAT APPELLAWT Soe HAS PAID For Up dis PUTED FACT 0 mae TY |N FULL TO THE OWNERS JOSE CWS AND THe Peo PERTY CORD AmD APPELLAMTS PARENTS THE MOTE HAS BEEM SATIS FIED, PROPERTY IS FREE aw) CLEAR APPELLEE LOPEZ HAS WOT RESPONDED TOAPPELLAUTS MOTICU FOR al 7 SUMMARY SUDGMENT FILED AU EUST OF, 2019 AMD AmMEWD ED AUGUST (2 2014