From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mcconnell v. May

Supreme Court of Texas
Jan 9, 1991
800 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. 1991)

Summary

holding that unverified motion to reinstate does not extend the trial court's jurisdiction to hear case

Summary of this case from Unifund CCR, LCC v. Whitaker

Opinion

No. D-0215.

October 10, 1990. Rehearing Overruled January 9. 1991.

Appeal from District Court No. 149, Brazoria County, Robert E. May, J.

Gary L. McConnell, Angleton, for relator.

James S. Munson, Wharton, for respondent.


In this original proceeding, Relator Gary L. McConnell (McConnell) seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge to vacate his July 2, 1990 order granting Plaintiff C.D. Blanchard's unverified motion to reinstate. Pursuant to Rule 122 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, without hearing oral argument, a majority of the court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.

On April 18, 1990, Blanchard's suit against McConnell was dismissed for want of prosecution. On April 24, 1990, Blanchard filed an unverified motion to reinstate. On July 2, 1990, the trial judge granted Blanchard's motion. McConnell argues that the trial judge abused his discretion when he granted Blanchard's unverified motion to reinstate. We agree.

"A motion to reinstate shall set forth the grounds therefor and be verified by the movant or his attorney. It shall be filed with the clerk within 30 days after the order of dismissal is signed. . . ." TEX.R.CIV.P. 165a(3) (emphasis added). A proper motion to reinstate must be verified and filed with the clerk within 30 days of the signing of the order of dismissal. Butts v. Capitol City Nursing Home, Inc., 705 S.W.2d 696, 697 (Tex. 1986). See Christopher v. Fuerst, 709 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.); George v. George, 564 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1978, no writ); Matter of Marriage of Parr, 543 S.W.2d 433, 437 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corpus Christi 1976, no writ). Since Blanchard did not file a verified motion to reinstate within 30 days of the signing of the order of dismissal, the trial court's jurisdiction to reinstate the case expired. See Butts, 705 S.W.2d at 697; Christopher v. Fuerst, 709 S.W.2d at 268.

Pursuant to Rule 122 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, without hearing oral argument, a majority of the court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial judge refuses to act in accordance with this opinion.


Summaries of

Mcconnell v. May

Supreme Court of Texas
Jan 9, 1991
800 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. 1991)

holding that unverified motion to reinstate does not extend the trial court's jurisdiction to hear case

Summary of this case from Unifund CCR, LCC v. Whitaker

holding that unverified motion to reinstate does not extend trial court’s jurisdiction to hear case

Summary of this case from Young v. Di Ferrante

holding that trial court abused its discretion when it granted unverified motion to reinstate.

Summary of this case from Brown v. Preston

holding that unverified motion to reinstate does not extend trial court's jurisdiction to hear case

Summary of this case from Watson v. Clark

finding that in the absence of a verified motion to reinstate, the trial court's plenary power expires thirty days after the date on which it signed a final order of dismissal

Summary of this case from Darr v. Altman

granting mandamus relief where jurisdiction to reinstate case had expired

Summary of this case from In re Gonzalez

granting mandamus relief to set aside order reinstating case more than thirty days after dismissal on unverified motion

Summary of this case from Westbrook v. Heirs of David Crockett

granting mandamus relief to set aside order reinstating case more than thirty days after dismissal on unverified motion

Summary of this case from In re Valliance Bank

granting mandamus relief to set aside order reinstating case more than thirty days after dismissal on unverified motion

Summary of this case from In re Valliance Bank

granting mandamus relief to set aside order reinstating case more than thirty days after dismissal on unverified motion

Summary of this case from In re Valliance Bank

In McConnell, the Texas Supreme Court conditionally granted a writ of mandamus directing a trial court to vacate an order granting an unverified motion to reinstate.

Summary of this case from W. Travis Cnty. Pub. Util. Agency v. CCNG Dev. Co.

explaining that a verified motion to reinstate filed within thirty days of dismissal extends plenary power for the same amount of time as a motion for new trial

Summary of this case from In re New Hampshire Ins. Co.

In McConnell, the supreme court concluded that because the party had not filed a verified motion to reinstate within thirty days of the signing of the order of dismissal, the trial court's jurisdiction to reinstate the case expired.

Summary of this case from In re Dobbins

In McConnell, the supreme court conditionally granted writ of mandamus in a nearly identical situation, but the court did not address the requirement of an adequate remedy at law.

Summary of this case from South Main Bank v. Wittig
Case details for

Mcconnell v. May

Case Details

Full title:Gary L. McCONNELL, Relator, v. The Honorable Robert E. MAY, Judge…

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Jan 9, 1991

Citations

800 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. 1991)

Citing Cases

Macarangal v. Andrews

TEX.R.CIV.P. 165a(3). An unverified motion to reinstate does not extend the trial court's plenary…

Owen v. Hodge

Thus, a proper motion to reinstate must be verified and filed with the clerk within 30 days of the signing of…