instead at a different address that was known to the Rogerses because they served him with process at that address in the underlying case. McCoy denied receiving any timely notice, to which he maintained he was entitled, despite the terms of the agreed judgment, and stated that he was not aware of the execution sale until August 2004. McCoy disputed the Rogerses’ contention that he waived notice of execution by the terms of the agreed judgment and argued that those terms applied only to the Rogerses’ decision to “seek” execution. He claimed that fact issues concernin , 587 (Tex.1975) (trustee sale); Onwuteaka v. Cohen, 846 S.W.2d 889, 893-94 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied) (trustee sale); see also Powell v. Stacy, 117 S.W.3d 70, 75 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Both conditions are necessary: neither
holding that trial court properly rejected multiple alleged irregularities claimed to warrant setting aside trustee sale holding that a trustee properly withheld trust payments owed to a prior trustee who had misappropriated trust funds holding that a conclusory opinion may be rejected holding that the trial court was without authority to set aside entry of default on motion to set aside default judgment recognizing that a trial court can set aside verdict