that some courts have considered a statement of such an intent to be a significant factor in distinguishing Cherokee Water. See, e.g., Kendrick v. Garcia, 171 r was dated four days prior to the order denying Richard’s amended claim, the letter and the order were filed of record on the same date (July 23, 2012). And the trial court did not file formal findings of fact and conclusions of law, even after Richard requested them and filed a notice of late findings and conclusions. Based upon these facts, we hold that the trial court’s letter contains its findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to the denial of Richard’s amended claim. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 296; cf. Rose v. Woodworth, No. 04-08-00382-CV, 2009 WL 97256, at *1 (Tex.App.-San Antonio Jan. 14, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). Upon receiving the trial court’s letter,
holding that purpose of rule 296 is to give party a right to findings of fact and conclusions of law on issues adjudicated after trial on merits to court holding court must conduct new trial absent parties consent where deceased judge had not issued findings of fact and conclusions of law before death holding rule 296 satisfied where trial court did not file requested formal findings and conclusions but issued postjudgment letter providing reasons for courts order and filed of record holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence holding that the error caused by the magistrate judges unauthorized postjudgment order was cured by the district courts later de novo review of the magistrates findings and conclusions