not stated a claim for affirmative relief that precludes a nonsuit. See id. The Builders never asserted any counterclaims or affirmative defenses. The non-specific request in their answer and summary-judgment motion for attorneys’ fees is the only request that could potentially constitute a claim for affirmative relief. As discussed above, the Builders’ claim for attorneys’ fees was not a claim for affirmative relief independent of the Polanskys’ claim, and the Builders did not have a viable motion for attorneys’ fees or sanctions pending at the time of the non-suit. Thus, the Polanskys were entitled to a dismissal without prejudice of their breach-of-contract claim against the Builders immediately upon filing the nonsuit. See Fowler v. Epps, 352 S.W.3d 1, 3-4 (Tex.App.-Austin 2010) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 351 S.W.3d 862, 864
holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence holding that the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs defamation claim holding appeal from an order dismissing action without prejudice was properly before this court holding that court erred in dismissing minors claims with prejudice absent a hearing holding court erred by disposing of plaintiffs claims on merits after nonsuit filed instead of dismissing case without prejudice