Ann. § 17.50 (Vernon Supp.2009). 2 . The style of the first amended original petition reads, “Jerry L. Barth vs. Bank of America Corportaion” [sic]; in its opening paragraph, Barth complains "of BANK OF AMERICA COPORATION” [sic]. In the parties section of his petition, Barth also identifies "Bank of America Corporation” as the defendant. 3 . Barth also refers this Court to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9, Bank of America, N.A.’s responses to Barth’s interrogatories, whe 347 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, no pet.) (determining that misnomer occurred when actual plaintiff, SMS II, instead named another entity, SMS I, in its original petition). Courts generally allow parties to correct a misnomer so long as it is not misleading. See, e.g., Enserch [Corp. v. Parker], 794 S.W.2d [2,] 4-5 [(Tex.1990)] (<HOLDING>); Chen, 227 S.W.3d at 420 ("A misnomer does not
holding that when a plaintiff misnames a defendant limitations is tolled and a subsequent amendment of the petition relates back to the date of the original petition holding that the limitations period is not tolled while a federal habeas petition is pending holding that the untimely petition in that case tolled the aedpa statute of limitations holding that aedpa statute of limitations was tolled during fourmonth delay between date petitioner delivered state habeas petition to prison officials and date petition was stamped as filed in state court even though oklahoma did not apply prisoner mailbox rule holding that the limitations period is likewise not tolled during the pendency of a certiorari petition to the supreme court