The hearing in the trial court addressed two motions: (1) motion to strike all affirmative defenses and (2) motion for partial summary judgment on civil theft cause of action. Defendant made written argument against motion for partial summary judgment on civil theft, but made no written argument against the striking of affirmative defenses. In fact, her written argument said specifically that it applied only to the civil theft cause. Neither Defendant nor her lawyer attended the hearing, even though they were properly noticed. After the ruling against them (granting striking affirmative defenses and partial summary judgment on civil theft), neither Defendant nor her lawyer asked for a re-hearing. Instead, they appealed.
