With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.” TexR. Civ. P. 97(a). There is a split in the courts of appeals regarding whether an order severing a compulsory counterclaim will automatically constitute an abuse of discretion. Compare Rucker v. Bank One Tex., N.A., 36 S.W.3d 649, 651' (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. denied); Goins v. League Bank & Trust, 857 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ); and Mathis v. Bill De La Garza & Assocs., 778 S.W.2d 105, 106-07 (TexApp.-Texarkana 1989, no writ) (all holding that severance of a compulsory counterclaim is an abuse of discretion), with In re Occidental Permian Ltd., No. 07-03-0016-CV, slip op. at 4, 2003 WL 1799012, at *2 (Tex.App.-Amarillo April 7, 2003, orig. proceeding [pet. for mandamus filed]) (<HOLDING>); see also Hart v. Attorneys-At-Law, No.

A: holding it improper to independently review the record to find support for a trial courts decision so long as it is unclear whether the trial court considered statutory factors
B: holding that a defendants attorney can waive the defendants sixth amendment confrontation right so long as the defendant does not dissent from his attorneys decision and so long as it can be said that the attorneys decision was a legitimate trial tactic or part of a prudent trial strategy
C: recognizing further normally the ruling is not a final one it is a red flag to counsel that the evidence is not to be brought before the jury unless and until it is separately taken up with the court  at trial
D: holding that so long as trial court abides by rule 41 it is not error to sever and proceed separately with compulsory counterclaim
D.