With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not stated a claim for affirmative relief that precludes a nonsuit. See id. The Builders never asserted any counterclaims or affirmative defenses. The non-specific request in their answer and summary-judgment motion for attorneys’ fees is the only request that could potentially constitute a claim for affirmative relief. As discussed above, the Builders’ claim for attorneys’ fees was not a claim for affirmative relief independent of the Polanskys’ claim, and the Builders did not have a viable motion for attorneys’ fees or sanctions pending at the time of the non-suit. Thus, the Polanskys were entitled to a dismissal without prejudice of their breach-of-contract claim against the Builders immediately upon filing the nonsuit. See Fowler v. Epps, 352 S.W.3d 1, 3-4 (Tex.App.-Austin 2010) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 351 S.W.3d 862, 864

A: holding court erred by disposing of plaintiffs claims on merits after nonsuit filed instead of dismissing case without prejudice
B: holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence
C: holding that the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs defamation claim
D: holding appeal from an order dismissing action without prejudice was properly before this court
A.