Roshni Patel challenged a property-related summary judgment entered for Kensington Community Association and also appealed the denial of post-judgment motions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment because Patel did not present evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact and could not rely on evidence that was submitted only after the ruling. The court rejected Patel’s contention that an address discrepancy in the Association’s summary-judgment brief required a different result; the parties had to present their evidence and arguments in the trial court. The appellate court nevertheless vacated the orders denying Patel’s post-judgment motions because the trial court lacked authority to alter or supplement the judgment while the appeal from that judgment was pending. The case was affirmed in part and vacated in part. Two judges concurred.