With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". standing to bring this suit. We overrule Nguyen’s first issue. Affidavit In his second issue, Nguyen asserts that Reynolds’s affidavit was defective and therefore not competent summary judgment evidence. Under this brief issue, Nguyen again points out that Reynolds does not expressly refer to Citi Cards — the name that appears on the billing statements and to which he was to send his payments — and additionally suggests Reynolds’s affidavit is conclusory and not based on personal knowledge. Affidavits supporting or opposing summary judgment must be made on personal knowledge. Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(f). Affidavits containing conclusory statements that fail to provide the underlying facts to support the conclusion are not prope 719-20 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). Reynolds’s affidavit was not conclusory and

A: holding that a bank is required to notify the maker of a promissory note by some affirmative act upon exercise of its option to accelerate the maturity date of the note
B: holding that bank employees affidavit setting forth total balance due sufficient to support summary judgment
C: holding that where a promissory note had never been made payable to plaintiff or to bearer nor had it ever been indorsed to plaintiff    defendants established that plaintiff was not the owner or holder of the note
D: holding affidavit by bank president was sufficient to support summary judgment where it established plaintiff bank owned the note and the amount due on the note and defendant failed to offer controverting evidence
D.