With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Standard Concrete Pipe Sales Co., 366 S.W.2d 103 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1963, no writ), the court of appeals held it to be error for the trial court to include in a summary judgment an order severing an attorney’s-fee issue in a suit on an account when the defendant, in controverting affidavits, raised an issue of fact as to the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees demanded in the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Id. at 105. The crux of the court’s holding was that the defendant was entitled to rely on its affidavits as raising a fact issue to defeat the summary-judgment motion. Id. The outcome may well have been different if the severance had come after a ruling on the motion for summary judgment. See Cherokee Water Co. v. Forderhause, 641 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Tex.1982) (<HOLDING>). Bradford directs this Court to several eases

A: holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed
B: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in severing defendants counterclaim after summary judgment was granted as to plaintiffs claim
C: holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violation was willful and substantial
D: holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed
B.