Tex.R. Crv. P. 329b(b); Moritz, 121 S.W.3d at 720. An amended motion for new trial filed by an attorney on or after December 3, 2009, would have preserved no error for appeal. See Mor-itz, 121 S.W.3d at 720-21. Rabb never requested the trial court to give an opportunity to cure the defective motion for new trial, and there is no indication in the record that before December 3, 2009, the trial judge or the Restaurant’s counsel was aware that Butt had filed the defective motion. On this record, we conclude the trial court had no duty to recognize that a non-attorney had filed a motion for new trial on December 1, 2009, and to notify Rabb that it had until December 2, 2009 to have an attorney file an amended motion for new trial to cure the defect. See Dell Dev. Corp., 743 S.W.2d at 303 (<HOLDING>). Corporations appearing in court may be
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the withdrawal of the juiy trial waiver holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by not sua sponte granting a continuance of trial when corporation sent only a nonattorney to represent the corporation at trial and trial court did not allow nonattorney to represent corporation at trial holding that a nonattorney may not appear pro se on behalf of a corporation holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for continuance when not in proper affidavit form holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting such a temporary injunction