to final disposition of the appeal.”). DISCUSSION In his first appellate issue, Gardner asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment without stating the grounds on which it based its ruling. We hold that two well-established summary-judgment principles are fatal to Gardner’s argument. First, our summary-judgment jurisp of fact and conclusions of law have no place in a summary judgment proceeding. If summary judgment is proper, there are no facts to find, and the legal conclusions have already been stated in the motion and response.” Willms v. Americas Tire Co., Inc., 190 S.W.3d 796, 810 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied) (internal citations omitted); see IKB Indus., 938 S.W.2d at 441 (same); Linwood v. NCNB Tex., 885 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Tex.1994) (<HOLDING>). As these cases suggest, the trial court’s
holding that a trial courts judgment must comply with the statutory requirement that the judgment contain written findings of fact and conclusions of law holding that appellate deadlines are not extended by request for findings of fact and conclusions of law following summary judgment because they have no place in a summary judgment proceeding holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that findings of fact and legal conclusions are neither necessary nor proper in summary judgment proceeding holding that motion accepting judgment but requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law was not directed against the judgment