evidence. Affidavits in support of motions for summary judgment must be developed from someone with personal knowledge, set forth such facts that would be admissible in evidence, and establish that the affi-ant is competent to testify on the matters stated therein. TexR. Civ. P. 166a(f); Hyland Group, 924 S.W.2d at 122. The objection that a statement is “eonclusory” is an objection that is frequently made to challenge affidavits in summary judgment cases. See Ryland Group, 924 S.W.2d at 122; Johnson v. Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Servs., 935 S.W.2d 235, 239 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ denied). Affidavits consisting only of conclusions are insufficient to raise an issue of fact in response to a motion for summary judgment. Brownlee v. Brownlee, 665 S.W.2d 111, 112 (Tex.1984) (<HOLDING>); Residential Dynamics, LLC v. Loveless, 186
holding attorneys affidavit that does nothing more than assemble properly authenticated evidence is still not admissible because it is not based on personal knowledge holding that the time to disposition is more important than time to trial holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen holding that where the record supported the district courts conclusion that statements would not have been suppressed and there had been nothing submitted on appeal to lead to a different conclusion the petitioner had not shown any resulting prejudice from the failure to file a motion to suppress and therefore had not established a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel holding that a statement in an affidavit that his contractual obligation had been modified was nothing more than a legal conclusion and the affidavit should have gone further to specify factual matters such as the time place and exact nature of the alleged modification