expenditure by adding the amount to the balance due on the note. Therefore, we conclude the total amount due on the note on the date of sale of the property was $78,451.01. We hold that the difference between the fair market value of the property ($79,-600.00) and the total amount due on the note on the date of sale ($78,451.01) produces wrongful foreclosure damages of $1,148.99. See GXG, 977 S.W.2d at 423 (if a trial court errs in computing damages, the appellate court may reform the amount of damages); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Martin, 28 S.W.3d 42, 47 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.) (“A reviewing court has the power to modify the amount of recovery and reform a damages award.”); see also Rhodes v. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank, 91 S.W.2d 962, 964 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1936, no writ) (<HOLDING>). We sustain sub-issue (e) of appellant’s
recognizing appellate court may not reverse a summary judgment on a basis not raised by the appellant on appeal holding that erroneous findings of fact not necessary to support the judgment of the court are not grounds for reversal holding error in calculation of amount due on accelerated note secured by deed of trust does not require reversal of cause appellate court may correct judgment holding that defendant may not complain of error he invited and further holding that reversal cannot be based on such error holding a jury charge which is substantially correct and covers the law does not require reversal