With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". all issues— including liability—to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See Tex.R.App.P. 44.1(b); Natural Gas Clearinghouse v. Midgard Energy Co., 23 S.W.3d 372, 380 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g)(relying on Rule 44.1(b) of the Texas Rules of Procedure to remand the cause on all issues, including liability, because damages were unliquidated and appellant contested liability). In all other respects, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 2 , Villanova also signed a document in which he represented that the statements in his loan application were true and correct. 3 . Villanova executed the special warranty deed on the same day he purchased the property. 4 . Instead, Villanova placed the 3, 407 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Because HSOA does not raise this argument on

A: holding that a statement that the affiant is president of the company asserting a claim on an account is sufficient to affirmatively show how the affiant has personal knowledge of the affidavit statements regarding the account
B: holding that the failure of an affidavit to be made on personal knowledge or specify how the affiant had personal knowledge of the facts asserted is a defect in substance and need not be objected to at trial to be a ground for reversal
C: holding that a statement that the affiant is senior vicepresident and secretary of a corporation asserting a special appearance is sufficient to affirmatively show how the affiant has personal knowledge of the affidavit statements regarding the corporations contacts with texas
D: holding allegation that false affidavit was basis for arrest warrant is sufficient to state  1983 fourth amendment claim against affiant officer
C.