698, 702 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2005, pet. denied) (distinguishing Cherokee Water because trial court in Kendrick had not filed formal findings and conclusions and letter to parties contained statement that trial court intended appellate courts to rely on letter as basis for trial court’s decision). But we have determined that Cherokee Water does not apply here. And we know of no case, and Richard has not cited any case, holding that a statement of intent is required for a trial court’s prejudgment letter to constitute findings of fact and conclusions of law. In sum, the trial court’s prejudgment letter provides an extensive explanation of the basis for its ruling, which satisfies the purpose of Rule 296. See 1KB Indus. (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Pro-Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440, 442 (Tex.1997) (<HOLDING>); see also Tex.R. Civ. P. 206. Although the
holding that court is not required to state findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying  3582 motion holding that the function of the trial court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether issues of fact exist and not to decide the merits of the issues themselves holding that purpose of rule 296 is to give party a right to findings of fact and conclusions of law on issues adjudicated after trial on merits to court holding that on review of a motion to suppress the appellate court is to give deference to a trial courts factual findings but legal conclusions are reviewed de novo holding rule 296 satisfied where trial court did not file requested formal findings and conclusions but issued postjudgment letter providing reasons for courts order and filed of record