the damages or otherwise defeat summary judgment. He did not even identify the elements] of the Bank’s breach of contract claim on which his return of the vehicle allegedly raised a fact issue or suggest why it raised a fact issue on any particular element [s]. The requirement that the non-movant “fairly apprise” the trial court of the issues allegedly defeating summary judgment clearly contemplates that the trial court is not required to guess why a non-movant presents certain evidence or consider every possible reason the evidence might defeat summary judgment. In short, Tello’s bare assertion in his affidavit that he returned the vehicle did not “fairly apprise” the trial court what, if anything, he wanted the trial court to do with that information. Cf. Engel, 713 S.W.2d at 771-72 (<HOLDING>). In sum, trial court could not have erred by
holding affidavit of attorney filed by nonmovant in response to motion for summary judgment requesting recovery of movants attorneys fees fairly apprised trial court of issue allegedly defeating the motion by stating the fees were excessive and unreasonable recognizing that an appeal filed within 30 days of the entry of an order awarding attorney fees was timely filed as to the issue of attorney fees holding the trial courts failure to convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment after an affidavit was filed in response to the motion was harmless error where the affidavit had no impact on thedecisive statute of frauds issue holding a summary judgment to be final although motion to assess attorney fees remained pending because award of attorney fees is collateral to judgment holding motion for attorneys fees was necessary predicate