Opinion
14-24-00338-CV
12-12-2024
KOLAPO OLOKODANA, Appellant v. DEBORAH KELECHI NIKAGHARI AND EDO KISH UFOT, Appellees
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1224760.
Panel consists of Christopher, Chief Justice and Spain and Poissant, Justices.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Tracy Christopher, Chief Justice.
Landlord Kolapo Olokodana brought this forcible-detainer action in a Harris County justice court against tenants Deborah Kelechi Nikaghari and Edo Kish Ufot. Olokodana prevailed in the justice court, and the tenants appealed to County Civil Court at Law No. 3 by filing a statement of inability to pay for court costs and the appeal bond and by paying rent into the registry of the justice court. Shortly thereafter, the county court at law dismissed the case for want of prosecution.
A week after the dismissal, Olokodana filed a document styled as a notice of appeal in which she asked the county court to reopen the case on the ground that the justice court had failed to communicate her change of address to the county court at law, and thus, she had received no communications from that court. There are no further rulings in the case. Olokodana filed an appellate brief asking that we reverse the judgment on the ground that she had no notice of the tenants' appeal to the county court at law.
The procedural posture of this appeal is ambiguous, for the document styled as a notice of appeal seeks reinstatement of the case. If we were to treat the document solely as a motion to reinstate or a motion for new trial, then we would be required to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because no notice of appeal was timely filed. On the other hand, if we were to treat it solely as a notice of appeal, then we would be required to affirm the judgment because her complaint about lack of notice was not preserved in the trial court.
Under the circumstances, we will treat the filing both as a notice of appeal and as a motion to reinstate. We accordingly have jurisdiction to reach the merits of the appeal. But, a motion to reinstate must be verified. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3). A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying an unverified motion to reinstate. Saenz v. Springer, No. 14-21-00137-CV, 2022 WL 120894, at *4 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 13, 2022, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Because the document Olokodana filed was not verified, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the motion to be overruled by operation of law.
We accordingly affirm the trial court's judgment.