In those cases where a final judgment was entered, the courts have consistently held only a written, signed order can vacate, set aside, modify or amend the judgment and it must be entered within thirty days or any subsequent order is void. See In re Nguyen, 155 S.W.3d 191, 193-94 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2003, orig. proceeding); Fischer v. Tenet Hospitals, Ltd., 106 S.W.3d 110, 114-15 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002), reversed on other grounds, 111 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. 2003); In re J.H., 39 S.W.3d 688, 690 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Jauregui Partners, Ltd. v. Grubb Ellis Commercial Real Estate Services, 960 S.W.2d 334, 336 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1997, writ denied); and Cortland Line Co., Inc. v. Israel, 874 S.W.2d 178, 182-83 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied). A final judgment was entered on May 24, 2007.

The First Court of Appeals held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the May 19, 1999 judgment because the trial court did not sign an order granting a new trial from the May 1998 bench trial. See In re J.H., 39 S.W.3d 688, 689-90 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). Because Bauter did not timely appeal from the May 26, 1998 judgment, Bauter filed a bill of review.

A written, signed scheduling order setting a case for trial is not a substitute for a written, signed order granting a motion for new trial because the order setting the case for trial does not adjudicate the merits of the motion for new trial. In re Hesser, No. 05-00-00769-CV (Tex.App.Dallas May 31, 2000, 2000 WL 694742, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication), 2000 WL 694742; see also In the Interest of J.H., 39 S.W.3d 688, 690 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (docket entry, unsigned and undated handwritten entry on amended motion for new trial, notices of trial setting, and signed orders setting case for trial no substitute for signed, written order granting motion for new trial); Estate of Townes v. Wood, 934 S.W.2d 806, 807 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, orig. proceeding) (written, signed order setting case for trial does not, taken by itself or in conjunction with oral pronouncement and docket entry, constitute written, signed order adjudicating merits of motion for new trial); Cortland Line Co. v. Israel, 874 S.W.2d 178, 182-82 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (oral pronouncement, docket entry, and signed order setting hearing no substitute for written, signed order granting new trial). Here, the scheduling order does not contain any reference to the pending motion for new trial and does not expressly grant a new trial.