in his affidavit; (2) striking conclusory statements in his affidavit; (3) striking legal conclusions in his affidavit; and (4) granting CDM’s motion for summary judgment. II. Exclusion of Summary Judgment Evidence In points of error one, two and three, Cruikshank claims the trial court erred in sustaining CDM’s objections to his affidavit. CDM objected to Cruikshank’s affidavit because it contained hearsay, legal conclusions, conclusory statements, and statements contradicting his earlier deposition testimony. However, there is nothing in the record showing Cruikshank filed any response to CDM’s motion to strike, objected to the trial court’s ruling, or requested the trial court to reconsider its decision to strike various portions of his affi , 878 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s first
holding an issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived holding that because appellant did not become a party by intervention before judgment was rendered appellant may not extend the time to appeal by filing a motion for new trial holding issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal holding appellant waived issue on appeal by not objecting to or protesting the motion to strike before trial court