CROSSOVER: The DWOP Trap: Why an Unverified Motion to Reinstate Can Kill Your Family Law Appeal

Hart v. San Jacinto River Authority, 14-24-00786-CV, February 19, 2026.

On appeal from the Harris County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Synopsis

A timely filed but unverified motion to reinstate is a jurisdictional trap that leaves a litigant with no path to appellate review. While such a motion is “improper” and fails to extend the ordinary 30-day appellate timetable under the Butts rule, it nonetheless constitutes a “post-judgment motion” under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 30, which categorically precludes the availability of a restricted appeal.

Relevance to Family Law

In the high-volume world of Texas family law dockets, dismissals for want of prosecution (DWOP) are common, often occurring after a lull in litigation or a missed status conference while parties are operating under temporary orders. When a practitioner scrambles to file a motion to reinstate a divorce or SAPCR, the failure to include a verification—as required by TRCP 165a(3)—creates a “dead zone.” The lawyer loses the benefit of the 90-day extension for an ordinary appeal, but because they filed a “post-judgment motion,” they are also barred from seeking a restricted appeal six months later. This effectively renders the dismissal final and unappealable, potentially necessitating the refiling of the entire suit and the loss of standing or priority in “race to the courthouse” scenarios.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The underlying litigation involved hundreds of property owners asserting constitutional takings claims following Hurricane Harvey. After years of discovery and several trial resets, the trial court dismissed the case for want of prosecution on April 8, 2024, after neither side appeared for a remote status conference. Appellants’ counsel, claiming they received the notice by mail only after the hearing, filed a motion to reinstate three days later. Crucially, the motion was unopposed but unverified.

The trial court’s docket entry indicated that the motion was “Granted – Need Order,” and counsel submitted a proposed order that same day. However, the trial court never signed the written order. Because the motion was unverified, it failed to extend the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction or the appellate timetable beyond thirty days. Appellants did not file a notice of appeal within that 30-day window. Instead, five months later, they filed a notice of restricted appeal, arguing that their unverified motion was a “nullity” and therefore did not count as a post-judgment motion that would bar a restricted appeal under TRAP 30.

Issues Decided

The court decided whether a timely filed but unverified motion to reinstate constitutes a “post-judgment motion” for purposes of TRAP 30. Specifically, the court addressed whether an “improper” motion that is ineffective to extend appellate deadlines can still be “valid” enough to preclude a restricted appeal.

Rules Applied

The court analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 30, which requires that an appellant in a restricted appeal must not have timely filed a post-judgment motion. It also applied Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3), which mandates that a motion to reinstate be verified. The court looked to the “Butts Rule” established in Butts v. Capitol City Nursing Home, Inc., 705 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1986), which holds that an unverified motion to reinstate does not extend the deadline to perfect an ordinary appeal. Finally, the court followed its own precedent in Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Marron, holding that an unverified motion is not a “nullity” but merely an “improper” motion.

Application

The court rejected the Appellants’ attempt to characterize their own unverified motion as a “nullity” or “void.” While acknowledging that under Butts, the unverified motion was “improper” and failed to move the needle on the 30-day ordinary appeal deadline, the court clarified that “improper” does not mean “non-existent.” The court reasoned that TRAP 30’s prohibition is triggered by the filing of a timely post-judgment motion, not the effectiveness of that motion in extending deadlines.

The court noted that the 14th Court has a history of rejecting the “nullity” argument in the context of restricted appeals. Even though the motion was procedurally defective for the purpose of extending the trial court’s plenary power, it was still a motion filed after the judgment. Consequently, because a motion was filed within the 30-day window allowed by Rule 165a, the second prong of TRAP 30 could not be met. The court further distinguished older dicta suggesting such motions were “nullities,” emphasizing that the precedential weight of Ameriquest required dismissal.

Holding

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the restricted appeal because the Appellants filed a timely post-judgment motion, even though that motion was unverified and failed to extend the ordinary appellate timetable. The court emphasized that the mere filing of the motion within thirty days of the dismissal order satisfies the “post-judgment motion” criteria of TRAP 30.

In a concurring opinion, the court expressed regret over the result, noting that the case “died by prosecutorial default” despite a docket entry indicating the trial court intended to grant reinstatement. However, the concurrence agreed that horizontal stare decisis compelled the court to follow the rule that an unverified motion to reinstate, while ineffective for extensions, still bars a restricted appeal.

Practical Application

This holding creates a procedural pincer movement. If you file an unverified motion to reinstate, you must file your notice of appeal within 30 days of the dismissal, because your motion will not buy you the 90-day extension. However, the very act of filing that (defective) motion also kills your right to a restricted appeal. For family law litigators, this means a “safety” motion to reinstate that is filed quickly without a client’s signature (verification) can be a fatal mistake if not followed immediately by a notice of appeal or an amended, verified motion within the 30-day window.

Checklists

Validating the Motion to Reinstate

• Ensure the motion is verified by the party or their attorney.
• Confirm the verification is based on personal knowledge, not just “information and belief.”
• File the motion within 30 days of the date the dismissal order was signed.
• Obtain a signed, written order granting reinstatement; a docket entry or “need order” note is legally insufficient.

Preserving Appellate Rights After a DWOP

• Monitor the 30-day deadline from the date of the dismissal order.
• If the motion to reinstate is not verified, file a Notice of Appeal within the original 30-day window.
• Do not rely on TRAP 30 (Restricted Appeal) if any motion—even a defective one—was filed within the first 30 days.
• Check the trial court’s website but verify with the clerk that a written order has been signed by the judge.

Citation

Hart v. San Jacinto River Authority, 14-24-00786-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 19, 2026, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

The full opinion can be found at the following link: Full Opinion

Family Law Crossover

This ruling can be weaponized by savvy counsel to cement a dismissal in a divorce or custody case. If an opposing party’s case is DWOPed and they file an unverified motion to reinstate, do not object to the lack of verification immediately. If you remain silent and the 30-day window for an ordinary appeal expires, the opponent cannot fix the verification, nor can they seek a restricted appeal. By the time they realize the Butts rule has prevented their appellate deadline from extending, they are procedurally barred from any relief. You have effectively used their own defective filing to block both the trial court’s plenary power and the appellate court’s jurisdiction.

~~40c29948-4436-41cd-8da2-97e179b03242~~