the divorce action was pending. See Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A. v. McCoy, 283 S.W.3d 96, 107 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (relying on plain language of petition to determine basis of plaintiffs claim); see also Tapia, 355 S.W.3d at 766 (determining that pleading provides fair notice when an opposing attorney of reasonable competence can ascertain nature and basic issues of the controversy). Timothy was therefore not. on notice that Kelly was seeking spousal maintenance that extended after the final decree was signed. An analogous situation arises when a plaintiff files but fails to serve on. the defendant an amended petition seeking more onerous relief than that prayed for in a previous served petition. See Cox v. C ton [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). II. Kelly’s prayer for general relief does
holding that where there is evidence sufficient to sustain finding of trial court that prejudicial error was contained in record there is no basis for stating that trial court abused discretion in granting new trial holding trial court erred in granting more relief than husband requested in petition and that such error is apparent on the face of the record holding that this line of cases was not on point and that no error was apparent on the face of the record due to lack of reporters record from defaultjudgment hearing because the judgment reflected that it was based only on the pleadings and affidavits that were in the record holding without a transcript of proceedings below review on appeal is limited to errors of law that are apparent on face of record holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss