meet the Craddock requirements. But, we have also held that some excuse, although not necessarily a good one, will suffice to show that a defendant’s failure to file an answer was not because the defendant did not care. Norma relies on her alleged inability to speak and read the English language to disprove conscious indifference. The Texas Supreme Court, however, has held that a failure to understand a document does not by itself amount to a mistake sufficient to satisfy Craddock. Our review of the record shows that Norma’s alleged failure to understand en Valley Airpark Ass'n, Inc., 169 S.W.3d 378, 381-82 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g) (citations omitted). 6 . See id. at 381. 7 . See id. at 381-82. 8 . See Mathis v. Lockwood, 166 S.W.3d 743, 744-45 (Tex.2005) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 134
holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived holding an issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal holding issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal holding a prior case was not precedent on an issue when the issue was not contested holding that oath requirement regarding attorneys testimony was waived when no objection was raised in circumstances that clearly indicated that attorney was tendering evidence on the record based on personal knowledge on the sole contested issue