litigation, or in 1995, 1996, 1998, or 1999. These arguments were based upon evidence and events that were not identified in the Brokers' motion for partial summary judgment. 20 . The Brokers’ reply was filed twelve days before the submission date. 21 . We do not give conclusive effect to the use or non-use of commonly-employed decretal words. Constance v. Constance, 544 S.W.2d 659, 660 (Tex.1977). We note, however, that the trial court’s statement that it considered the motion and the response is not "decretal.” See State v. Reagan County Purchasing Co., 186 S.W.2d 128, 134 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1944, writ ref'd w.o.m.) (explaining that "de-cretal" means the granting or denying of the remedy sought). 22 . Neimes v. Ta, 985 S.W.2d 132, 138-39 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, pet. dism’d) (<HOLDING>). 23 . Cf. Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919,
holding that filing of an answer up to the time of signing of judgment renders the judgment an absolute nullity holding that the filing of notice without motion is insufficient holding that if the record does not contain an affirmative indication that the trial court permitted a late filing then the filing is a nullity holding filing of motion for reconsideration does not toll the 30day deadline for filing petition for review holding that filing of an administrative complaint did not meet the requirement that the employee seek counseling prior to filing