party] waived its complaint of the failure on appeal.”). And as a result, filing a notice of past due findings is sufficient to preserve error for unfiled findings. What appears to make this case different is that Judge Williams did file findings, but this is a distinction without a difference. When a party challenges a lack of findings from the trial court, it is immaterial whether the court literally filed no findings or filed something that amounts to no findings authorized by law. In either case, the trial court has not discharged its obligation to provide findings and the requesting party does not have findings that comply with rule 296. Thus, Pak did not have an obligation to preserve error beyond filing his request for past due findings. See, e.g., Cherne, 763 S.W.2d at 772 (<HOLDING>). In other contexts, we have held that an order
holding timely and sufficiently specific objection is required to preserve error holding that objection to instructions by codefendants counsel is sufficient to preserve any error holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient holding that compliance with rules 296 and 297 is sufficient to preserve error for unfiled findings