Opinion
No. 05-09-00131-CV.
Opinion Filed April 15, 2009.
On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. DC-07-12248.
Before Justices BRIDGES, O'NEILL, and FITZGERALD.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 11, 2008, the trial court dismissed appellant's case for want of prosecution. Appellant filed an unverified motion to reinstate on December 5, 2008 and a notice of appeal on February 9, 2009. Appellant filed a response stating that a verified motion was not necessary in this case because "that rule only applies if there is some factual issue in dispute by either the Court or the opposing side or the record." In this case, appellant asserts, there are no disputed facts. For the reasons set out below, we conclude we lack jurisdiction.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3) requires that a motion to reinstate following a dismissal for want of jurisdiction be verified. Tex. R. App. P. 165a(3). An unverified motion to reinstate is not effective to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. See McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Macarangal v. Andrews, 838 S.W.2d 632, 633 (Tex.App. 1992, orig. proceeding). Rule 165a(3) does not contain the "disputed fact" condition for a verified motion; the rule specifically requires that a motion to reinstate following dismissal for want of prosecution be verified. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(d).
Because appellant's motion to reinstate was not verified, his notice of appeal was due by December 11, 2008. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant's February 9, 2009 notice of appeal is untimely, leaving us without jurisdiction over the appeal.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.