a timely postjudgment motion. Wright then appealed while his postjudgment motion was still pending before the trial court; both appeals were held in abeyance until the trial court denied Wright’s motion. See Rule 4(a)(5), Ala. R.App. P. On appeal, Wright and McConico argue principally that the trial court erred by failing to allow them to be heard on the motion for a summary judgment by granting that motion before they had filed responses and before conducting the hearing set on the motion. The defendants have filed a stipulation with this court, conceding that the trial court’s grant of the motion for a summary judgment before the date set for the hearing without notice to McConico and Wright requires reversal of the judgment. See Van Knight v. Smoker, 778 So.2d 801, 805 (Ala.2000) (<HOLDING>); and Tharp v. Union State Bank, 364 So.2d 335,
holding that the trial court should conduct a hearing to allow the parties to be heard including the defendant in person and to allow presentation of additional evidence before sentencing holding appellant waived his complaint that trial court gave him no notice of submission date for summaryjudgment motion by not raising the objection in the trial court holding that once a trial court has set a date for a summaryjudgment hearing the court must allow the nonmoving party an opportunity to be heard holding appellant waived her complaint that trial court gave her no notice of summaryjudgment hearing by not raising the objection in the trial court holding that trial courts resetting of hearing date for motion for summary judgment made timely summaryjudgment evidence that had been untimely based on hearing date in effect when the evidence was filed and served