all defendants with prejudice. To have granted this relief on a traditional motion for summary judgment, the trial court had to have found that Overflow Owner’s waiver argument failed as a matter of law and could not be the basis for relieving Overflow Owner of the ROA parking restrictions and further found that dismissal was proper as to all moving and nonmoving defendants. 1. Nonmoving defendants Mai & Matthews, Smith, and LG Sharpstown did not file motions for summary judgment on Overflow Owner’s waiver claim. Nor did they join Sharpstown Texas’s motion. The trial court’s order dismissing Overflow Owner’s waiver-based declaratory-judgment claims against these non-moving defendants was in error. Mitchell v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 109 S.W.3d 838, 844 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we reverse the trial court’s order as
holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding that summary judgment for defendant who did not file own motion or join codefendants motion was in error and required reversal holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable 