two challenging the summary judgment in favor of Savannah on its release affirmative defense. Because we have concluded the trial court properly granted Savannah’s motion for summary judgment on Savannah’s release defense, which is dispositive of this appeal, we need not address the remainder of sub-issues two and three. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.1. VI. Conclusion We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not continuing the submission date of Savannah’s summary judgment motions, and therefore, we overrule D.R. Horton’s and DRHI’s first sub-issue. We also hold the trial court did t, to preserve error, trial court must have expressly or implicitly ruled on request, objection, or motion), and Williams v. Bank One, Tex., N.A., 15 S.W.3d 110, 114-15 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). 5 . D.R. Horton and DRHI also complain on
holding it was error for trial court not to grant a continuance when appellant moved in open court to disqualify judge or in the alternative for a continuance to file a proper motion holding that trial court did not err in ruling on appellees motion for summary judgment before appellees complied with appellants discovery request when the record reflected that appellant filed a motion to compel three days before the hearing and the record did not reveal any effort on the part of appellant to secure a ruling from the trial court on its motion to compel or object at the trial court hearing the motion for summary judgment prior to ruling on the motion to compel holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding that trial court impliedly ruled on motion for continuance by granting motion for summary judgment when appellant filed motion for continuance two days before summary judgment hearing