name as “Broemer & Associates L.L.C.”; • Petition filed by B & A in lawsuit reflecting the firm’s name as “Broemer & Associates L.L.C.” on the signature block; • Docket sheets from two lawsuits reflecting the law firm’s name as “Broemer & Assoc. LLC”; and • A letter from an associate attorney from B & A reflecting the law firm’s name as “Broemer & Associates L.L.C.” on the signature block. We conclude that W. Fulton Broemer & Associates, L.C. was doing business under the assumed name B & A LLC. See Fogal, 294 S.W.3d at 717-18 (finding failure to file assumed name certificate was insufficient basis for finding arbitration provision with entity’s assumed name unenforceable when entity was doing business under unregistered assumed name). Thus, th Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). We sustain appellants’ third issue. We reform
holding that the state circuit court did not have the authority to award prejudgment interest for matters occurring prior to arbitration award holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties holding trial court erred in modifying terms of divorce decree regarding possession where party did not seek that relief holding trial court erred in modifying arbitration award to subtract credits holding no statutory grounds allowed trial court to modify arbitration award to dismiss claims against party