On September 27, 2017, Appellee Walton Homes, L.L.C (Walton Homes) filed the Appellee’s Sur-Reply [Brief] and Objections to Documents and Evidence Not in the Clerk’s Record. In that brief, Walton Homes argued inter alia that Appellant, the Unity Friendship Baptist Church (Unity), improperly attached extra-record documents in Exhibit A to the Appellant’s Reply Brief. Walton Homes asked us to strike Exhibit A “and any argument or statements relying on such documents . . . .”

On October 17, 2017, this Court granted Unity’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections & Response to Appellee’s Sur-Reply Brief. On October 20, 2017, Unity filed Appellant’s Objections & Response to Appellee’s Sur-Reply Brief. In that response, Unity objected to Walton Homes’ “motion to file a sur-reply brief,” contending that Walton Homes “did not request leave of court to do so pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(d) in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b).” We interpret this as a request by Unity to strike Walton Homes’ sur-reply brief. Unity also asserted that because Walton Homes waited more than three months after Unity filed a reply brief to object to Exhibit A, Walton Homes “waived any objections to exhibits.” Unity also asked for thirty days to supplement the records with Unity’s Amended Motion for Continuance in the trial court.

*2 We issue the following rulings on the parties’ objections and requests: 1) Unity’s objection to, and motion to strike, Walton Homes’ sur-reply brief is denied. 2) Unity’s assertion that Walton Homes has waived any objection to the inclusion of Exhibit

A in Unity Reply Brief’s Appendix is overruled. 3) We will take Walton Homes’ motion to strike Exhibit A of Unity’s Reply Brief “and any argument or statements relying upon such documents” under advisement, and pass and consider the motion along with final disposition of this opinion.

4) Unity’s request for thirty days to supplement the clerk’s records with its Amended Motion for Continuance is granted. The Court will refrain from action on this case for thirty days. AS THE DATE OF SUBMISSION HAS ALREADY PASSED IN THIS

CASE, NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WILL BE

CONSIDERED. After thirty days, the Court will resume its review of the case on the merits regardless of whether or not the supplemental clerk’s record has been received. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017.

PER CURIAM 2