With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". some evidence and factual findings that the conduct complained of significantly interfered with the court’s legitimate exercise of one of its traditional core functions.” Kennedy v. Kennedy, 125 S.W.3d 14, 19 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. denied). In this case, it is undisputed that the trial court never noticed or held a court-initiated evidentiary hearing on sanctions. The order is entitled “Order Granting Summary Judgment,” and it notes that “a hearing was held on the Motion for Summary Judgment” and that the court grants “this Motion.” Nevertheless, to the extent that the trial court imposed sanctions on its own initiative without (1) notice issued before the hearing, (2) an evidentiary hearing, or (3) factual findings, it abused its discretion. See Unifund CCR, 299 S.W.3d at 98 (<HOLDING>); Kennedy, 125 S.W.3d at 19 (holding court

A: holding trial court abused its discretion by assessing sanctions based on inadmissible document
B: holding that record was inadequate to conclude that trial court abused its discretion in awarding death penalty sanctions where relator did not provide court with hearings on sanctions or motion to compel
C: holding that trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for rule 11 sanctions without adequate explanation
D: holding trial court abused discretion by assessing sanctions without supporting evidence
A.