sanctions for discovery abuse against any party even after a judgment has been rendered and it is clear by the Certificate of Non-Appearance filed with the Court on June 21, 2011 and part of the court’s record that Landrah Polansky failed to appear at a duly noticed deposition — the Court can and perhaps still should add to the judgment for the Non-Movants by sanctioning this admittedly abusive behavior. (Emphasis added.) The Builders did not, however, move for sanctions after the trial court rendered its judgment. Therefore, to the extent that the trial court awarded sanctions on a rule or statutory-basis never asserted by the Builders in a motion for sanctions and without supporting evidence, it abused its discretion. See Greene, 174 S.W.3d at 299-301; Unifund CCR, 299 S.W.3d at 98 (<HOLDING>). Because we must consider “whether the court
holding that trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for rule 11 sanctions without adequate explanation holding trial court abused discretion by assessing sanctions without supporting evidence holding trial court abused its discretion by assessing sanctions based on inadmissible document holding that trial court erred by imposing sanctions against attorney without notice and hearing but error was cured by attorneys subsequent challenge to sanctions holding that record was inadequate to conclude that trial court abused its discretion in awarding death penalty sanctions where relator did not provide court with hearings on sanctions or motion to compel