Civ. P. 166a(c) which prohibits the receipt of oral testimony at the summary judgment hearing. This argument lacks merit. The trial court held two distinct hearings: a hearing on the summary judgment on October 9 and a Probate Code hearing on October 19. No violation of Tex.R.Civ. P. 166a(c) occurred. We overrule contestants’ fourth and fifth issues. Sanctions 1. Rule 329b(g) In their final issue on appeal, contestants allege the trial court’s plenary power expired before the sanctions order issued. We consider this jurisdictional challenge in terms of whether the beneficiaries’ filing of a motion for sanctions within the period of the court’s plenary power operated to assail the judgment and thus extend the court’s p , 815 S.W.2d 884, 886-87 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991, no writ)(<HOLDING>); Cf. Gomez v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice,
holding that a nonpartys motion for new trial and petition for intervention filed after the trial court signed a final judgment did not extend the courts plenary jurisdiction holding that appellate timetable is extended by filing postjudgment motion or other instrument that is 1 timely filed and 2 assails the trial courts judgment holding that timely filed motion for sanctions which requested an award of over 40000 in attorneys fees requested a substantial change in the judgment holding that only a motion seeking a substantive change in a judgment will extend the appellate deadlines and the trial courts plenary power holding that a timely filed motion for sanctions which specifically requested modification of judgment extended trial courts plenary power