Rule 165a(3) Verified Motion Required for Reinstatement | Lemus v. Lopez (2026)

Rosenda Lemus a/k/a Rosenda Hernandez v. Ivis Enrique Lopez, 05-25-00697-CV, May 26, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas

Synopsis

A motion to reinstate after a dismissal for want of prosecution must satisfy Rule 165a(3): it must be verified and filed within thirty days after the dismissal order. If that does not happen, the trial court’s plenary power expires thirty days after dismissal, any later reinstatement order is void, and any eventual final judgment is void as well.

Relevance to Family Law

This holding matters directly in Texas family law because docket-management dismissals happen in post-divorce enforcement actions, SAPCR modifications, property-division disputes, partition-and-turnover proceedings, and ancillary county-court litigation tied to family cases. When a divorce-related or custody-related matter is dismissed for want of prosecution, counsel cannot treat reinstatement as a casual housekeeping step: if the motion is late or unverified, the court loses plenary authority, and years of later litigation, including a final judgment, may be wiped out as void. For family lawyers managing crowded dockets and serial reset practice, Lemus v. Lopez is a reminder that procedural discipline after a DWOP is jurisdictional in effect.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The case had been dismissed for want of prosecution on June 30, 2020. The appellee later sought reinstatement, and the trial court purported to reinstate the case based on a motion filed on August 12, 2020. That filing came forty-three days after the dismissal order and was unverified.

Despite those defects, the case proceeded forward in the trial court and ultimately resulted in a final judgment signed on May 6, 2025. On appeal, the Dallas Court of Appeals focused not on the merits of that judgment, but on whether the trial court ever regained jurisdiction after the DWOP. The appellate record showed that the reinstatement procedure did not comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3), which made the later reinstatement order—and everything that followed—jurisdictionally defective.

Issues Decided

• Whether Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3) allows reinstatement of a case dismissed for want of prosecution when the motion to reinstate is filed more than thirty days after the dismissal order.
• Whether an unverified motion to reinstate satisfies Rule 165a(3).
• Whether the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction expired thirty days after dismissal in the absence of a timely, verified motion to reinstate.
• Whether a reinstatement order entered after plenary power expired is void.
• Whether a later final judgment entered after a void reinstatement order is also void.
• What relief the court of appeals may grant when the appeal is taken from a void judgment.

Rules Applied

Rule 165a(3) governed the reinstatement question. The rule permits reinstatement after a dismissal for want of prosecution only when a verified motion to reinstate is filed within thirty days of the dismissal order. The rule also establishes the timetable for when such a motion is overruled by operation of law and how long plenary power continues if a proper motion is timely filed.

The court relied on McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam), for the proposition that without a timely and verified motion to reinstate, the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction expires thirty days after dismissal.

The court also relied on Pipes v. Hemingway, 358 S.W.3d 438, 445 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.), which confirms that action taken after plenary power expires is void, including an improper reinstatement order.

Finally, the court cited In re M.K., 514 S.W.3d 369, 380 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.), for the appellate remedy: when an appeal is taken from a void judgment, the court of appeals has jurisdiction only to vacate the judgment and dismiss the appeal.

Application

The Dallas Court of Appeals applied Rule 165a(3) in a straightforward but unforgiving manner. The case was dismissed on June 30, 2020, so any motion to reinstate had to be both verified and filed by the thirtieth day after that order. The motion actually filed did not satisfy either requirement identified by the court’s opinion: it was filed forty-three days after dismissal, and it was unverified.

Those defects were not treated as technical irregularities. They meant there was no qualifying Rule 165a(3) motion capable of extending the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction beyond the default thirty-day period following dismissal. Once that thirty-day period expired, the trial court no longer had power to reinstate the case. As a result, the reinstatement order was void from inception.

That conclusion controlled everything that followed. Because the purported reinstatement was void, the case was never validly restored to the court’s active docket. The final judgment entered in May 2025 therefore rested on no live jurisdictional foundation and was itself void. The appellate court notified the parties of the jurisdictional problem and invited a response showing that the judgment had been signed within plenary jurisdiction. Only the appellant responded, agreeing the judgment was void. With no basis in the record to save jurisdiction, the court vacated the final judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Holding

The court held that Rule 165a(3) requires a motion to reinstate after dismissal for want of prosecution to be both verified and filed within thirty days of the dismissal order. A motion that is filed outside that thirty-day period, or that is unverified, does not invoke the reinstatement mechanism necessary to extend the trial court’s plenary power.

The court further held that, in the absence of a timely, verified motion to reinstate, the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction expires thirty days after the dismissal order. Any reinstatement order signed after that date is void, not merely voidable.

The court also held that a final judgment rendered after a void reinstatement order is likewise void. Because the appellate court’s authority over a void judgment extends only to vacating it and dismissing the appeal, that was the disposition entered here.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, the lesson is immediate and operational. If a post-divorce enforcement action, a modification suit, a paternity-related matter, or a property dispute is dismissed for want of prosecution, do not assume that an agreed reinstatement, an uncontested hearing, or a cooperative court coordinator can cure a defective motion. Jurisdiction cannot be recreated by acquiescence. If the Rule 165a(3) motion is not timely and verified, the file may continue moving for months or years, but the resulting orders remain vulnerable as void.

This creates both offensive and defensive opportunities in family litigation. On the plaintiff or movant side, counsel must calendar the DWOP date immediately and get a verified motion on file inside thirty days, with competent proof explaining the failure to appear or prosecute. On the respondent side, if the other party resurrects a dismissed case using a late or unverified motion, jurisdiction should be challenged early, but Lemus also confirms that the defect can ultimately invalidate a later merits judgment.

The case is particularly important in family dockets where related claims are often fragmented across courts and cause numbers. Lawyers handling enforcement claims over retirement divisions, reimbursement disputes, turnover requests, child-support arrearage litigation, or modification actions in county court should confirm that any prior DWOP was properly cured before investing heavily in discovery, mediation, trial preparation, or judgment enforcement. A defective reinstatement can nullify all of it.

Practitioners should also distinguish between preserving a case and preserving appellate deadlines. A document styled as a motion to reinstate but lacking verification may look sufficient from a docket-management perspective while failing for jurisdictional purposes. After Lemus, counsel should assume that strict compliance with Rule 165a(3) will be enforced according to its text and the Supreme Court’s directive in McConnell.

Checklists

DWOP Response Checklist

• Obtain the signed dismissal order immediately and confirm the exact signing date.
• Calculate the thirty-day deadline under Rule 165a(3) from the date the dismissal order was signed.
• Prepare a motion to reinstate that is expressly verified.
• Ensure the verification is properly executed by a person with personal knowledge.
• File the verified motion before the thirty-day deadline expires.
• Set the motion for hearing promptly, while tracking the seventy-five-day operation-of-law deadline.
• Confirm that any written reinstatement order is signed while the court still has plenary power.

Verification Checklist

• Do not rely on an unsworn motion unless a rule or statute expressly permits it.
• Include a formal verification or affidavit attached to the motion.
• State facts within the affiant’s personal knowledge supporting reinstatement.
• Confirm that the jurat, signature, and notarial formalities are complete.
• Review the filed version on the clerk’s docket to ensure the verification was actually included.
• If e-filing separates attachments, confirm the verification was not omitted in transmission.

Family Law Case Audit After Reinstatement

• Review the docket for any prior dismissal for want of prosecution.
• Pull the actual motion to reinstate from the clerk’s record, not just the docket entry.
• Verify both timeliness and verification.
• Calculate when plenary power expired if no proper motion was filed.
• Evaluate whether later temporary orders, discovery orders, sanctions, or final judgment rest on a void reinstatement.
• Raise the jurisdictional defect before trial if discovered early.
• Preserve the issue on appeal even if the trial court proceeded as though reinstatement were valid.

Defense-Side Void Judgment Screening

• Compare the dismissal date to the motion-to-reinstate filing date.
• Check whether the motion was verified on file, not merely represented as verified.
• Determine whether the trial court signed the reinstatement order after plenary power had already expired.
• Assess whether a motion for new trial or other filing could independently extend plenary power.
• If the reinstatement was void, analyze whether the final judgment should be attacked as void.
• On appeal, request vacatur and dismissal rather than merits review when the judgment is void.

Plaintiff-Side Risk Management in Family Litigation

• Maintain internal ticklers for DWOP notices, dismissal dates, and reinstatement deadlines.
• Assign responsibility for verification before the motion is sent for filing.
• Do not assume opposing counsel’s agreement can cure jurisdictional defects.
• Do not proceed to mediation, prove-up, or trial without confirming reinstatement validity.
• Before seeking enforcement of a final order, confirm that no voidness issue exists in the procedural chain.
• Train staff and associate attorneys that Rule 165a(3) compliance is mandatory, not discretionary.

Citation

Rosenda Lemus a/k/a Rosenda Hernandez v. Ivis Enrique Lopez, No. 05-25-00697-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Dallas May 26, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~372ed9fc-8b9e-41eb-87e2-d8ab3dec34f8~~