The trial court responds by noting that the court set the Motion for submission on March 18, which is more than 21 days after the Reply was filed. Except on leave of court, a movant is required to file and serve summary-judgment evidence at least 21 days before the time specified for the motion to be submitted to the trial court for decision. See TexR. Crv. P. 166a(c); Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc., 989 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Tex.1998). Though the trial court did not grant the Brokers leave to file the Reply Evidence, it did not need to do so because the trial court took an action that made the evidence in question timely filed — it specified March 18 as the submission date for the Motion. See Dalehite v. Nauta, 79 S.W.3d 243, 245 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); Thomas v. Medical Arts Hosp. of Texarkana,
recognizing appellant must raise issue on appeal that more relief than requested in motion was improperly granted in summaryjudgment order holding that evidence filed less than 21 days before original summaryjudgment hearing was timely even though trial court never granted leave to file late evidence because the summaryjudgment hearing was reset to a date more than 21 days after the evidence was filed holding same when nonsuit filed after summaryjudgment hearing but before rendition of summary judgment holding that once a trial court has set a date for a summaryjudgment hearing the court must allow the nonmoving party an opportunity to be heard holding that trial courts resetting of hearing date for motion for summary judgment made timely summaryjudgment evidence that had been untimely based on hearing date in effect when the evidence was filed and served