Dis m iss ed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 23 , 2022.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00811

- CV

ANTHONY SAINT VAL , Appellant

V. PATRICIA HILL, VICE

- PRESIDENT OF GLENCAI RN ASSOCIATION

BOARD OF DIRECTORS , Appellee

On Appeal from the C o unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1129479

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant /plaintiff Anthony Saint Val attempt s to appeal from an order signed on Septem ber 23, 2020 , dismissing th is suit for want of p r osecution. Saint Val f iled his notice of appeal on Decem ber 4 , 20 20

. C onclud ing we lack appellate jurisdiction , we dismiss the appeal and a pending motion.2 I. B ACKGROUND
Saint Val sued appellee / defendant Patricia Hill, Vice

- President of Glencairn
Assoc i ation Board of Directors , asserting breach

- of

- co ntract and unjust

- enrichment
claims based on allegedly impr oper ite ms allegedly charged to Saint Val by the Glencairn Community Improvement Association Board of Directors . On Septe mber 23, 2020, th e trial co u rt signed an ord er dismiss ing Saint Val ’ s suit for want of prosecution

. Saint Val filed an unverified “ Motion to Reopen the Case ” on September 29, 2020. The trial court denied the motion, and on December 4, 2020, Saint Val filed his notice of appeal. The n otice of appeal does not comply with the requiremen ts of Texas Rule of Appellate Proc edure 25.1(d), and Saint Val did not specifica lly ident ify the trial co urt ’ s Sep tember 23, 2020 or der as the order from

w hich Saint Val sou ght to appeal. Nonetheless , we c onstru e Saint Val ’ s notice of appeal as a bona fide attempt to appeal the trial court’s Sep tember 23 dismissal order. See Warwi ck Towers Council of Co

- Owners v. Park Warwick, L.P. , 244 S.W.3d 838, 839

–

40 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam)

. II. J URISDICTIONA L A N A LYSIS

N o party has asserted that Sa int Val failed to timely file his notice of appeal , but we must review sua sponte issue s affecting our appellate jurisdiction. 1 See
M .O. Dental Lab v. Rape , 13 9 S.W.3d 671, 673 (Tex. 2004). An appellate court
genera lly h a s jurisdiction over a case if a notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the final judgment is signed unless one of the deadline

- extending
circumstances list ed in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 is present. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1; Tex. A ss’ n of Bus. v . Tex. Air Control Bd. , 852 S .W.2d 440, 443

– 44 (Tex. 1993); Watson v. Clark , No. 14

- 14

- 00031

- CV, 2015 WL 780563, at *1

1 We have given all parties ten days’ notice under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.3

(Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] F eb. 24, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 4

. 1 ( compu t ing time)

. Under Ru le 2 6.1, filing a verified motion to reinstate und er Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a within thirty days of the order of dismissal for want of prosecution extends the deadline to perfect appeal to ninety days a fter the trial court signed the dismissal or der

. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1; Watson , 2015 W L 78 0563, at *1.

A motion to reinstate stands as the only remedy available to a party when the
trial court has dismissed the case for want of prosecution. See Wat son , 2015 WL 780563, at *1. Thus, we dee m Sai nt Val ’ s “ Motion to Reopen the Case ” to be a moti on to reinstate ( “ Motion to Reinstate ” ). See id

. Saint Val filed his Motion to Reinst ate with in thirty days of the trial court ’ s dismissal order. Thus, the Motion to Reinstate was timely. But, to extend the de a dline to perfect appeal, the Motio n to Rei nsta te must have been verified or supported by a sufficie nt substitute for verification. See McConnell v. May , 800 S.W.2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990) ; Y oung v. DiFerrante , 553 S.W.3d 125, 12 8 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Di s t.] 2018, pet. denied).

If Saint Val did n ot v erify the Motion to R einstate or support it with a sufficient substitute for verification , we would lack appellate jurisdiction because the deadline to perfect appeal would be November 9 , 20 20 , at the latest , a nd Saint Val did not perfect appeal until Dece mber 4, 20 20

. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a) ; Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 615 (Tex. 1997) ; McConnell , 800 S.W.2d at 194; Butts v. Capitol City Nursing Home, I nc. , 705 S.W.2d 696, 697 (Tex. 1986) ; Wat son , 2015 WL 780563, at *1

. A. Verification Requirement for Motions to Reinstate Rule 165a states, “a motion to reinstate shall set forth the grounds therefor and be verified by the movant or his attorney.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a. Rule 16 5a4

does not defin e “v erified.” Though the rule does not expressly require that the verification be based on personal knowledge, courts have held that verifications must be based on personal knowledge. See Y oung , 553 S.W.3d at 1 2 8

. A verification is “[a] forma l declaratio n made in the presenc e of an authorized officer, such as a notary public, by which one swears to the truth of the statements
in [a] document. ” Douglas v. Ame rican Title Co

. , No. 14

- 08

- 00676

- CV, 2009 WL 3851674, a t * 3 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 19, 2009 , no pet.) (mem. op.). Courts have hel d that a motion to reinsta te su pported by one or more aff idavits may satisf

y Rule 165a’s requirements. See id. at 129

. Though the verification remains a core requirement o f the rule , c ourts recognize substitutes when t hey serve as the functional equivalent of a verification

. See id

. S aint Val, who was acting p ro se, did not verify or attempt to verify the Motion to Reinstate. Nor did Saint Val attach any affidavit or decl a ration 2 to the Motion to Reinstate

. The Mot ion to Reinstate did not contain t he functional equivalent of a ver ificat ion , nor was the motion supported by a sufficient substitute for verification

. Se e id. at 12 8

– 30; T wist v. McAllen Nat. Bank , 294 S.W.3d 25 5 , 26 2 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2009, no pet. )

B. Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction

Because Saint Val ’ s Motio n to R einsta te was not verified or supported by a sufficient s ubstitute for verification , the motion did not extend the timetable for filing a no t ice of appeal. See Jarrell v. Bergdor f , 580 S.W.3d 463, 465

– 67 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet. ) ; Y oung , 553 S.W.3d at 12 8

– 30 ; Twist , 294 S.W.3d at 260

– 63. I f the plain tiff does not file a timely motion to reinstate that

2 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. A nn. § 132.001(a) (West, Westlaw through 202 1 C.S.) (stating that “ [e] xcept as provided by Subsection (b), an unsworn declaration may be used in lieu of a written sworn declaration, verification, certification, oath, or af f idavit required by statute or required by a rule, order, or requirement adopt ed as provided by law

. ” ).5

satisfies the verific a tion requirement , the deadline to file a notice of appeal is , at most, forty

- five days after the date of the d ismiss al order

. See Verburgt , 959 S.W.2d at 615 ; Y

oung , 553 S.W.3d at 1 3 0 ; Twist , 294 S.W.3d at 260. T herefore,
the latest possible deadline for S aint Val to perfect this appeal was on M onday , Nov ember 9, 2020

. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a) ; Verburgt , 959 S.W .2d at 615 ; Jarrell , 580 S.W.3d at 465

– 67 ; Y oung , 553 S.W.3d at 1 3 0

. Saint Val did not file his notice of appeal un t i l December 4 , 20 20 , after th e jurisdicti onal deadline

. See Verburgt , 959 S.W.2d at 615 ; Jarrell , 580 S.W.3d at 465

– 67 ; Y oung , 553 S.W.3d

at 1 3 0

. Th is untimely notice of appeal does not vest this court with appellate jurisdiction. See Verburgt , 959 S.W.2d at 615; McConn ell , 800 S.W.2d at 194; Jarrell , 580 S.W.3d at 465

– 67 ; Y oung , 553 S.W.3d at 12 8

– 30 (holdi ng that court lacked appellate jurisd iction over pro se parties ’ atte mp t to appeal order dismissing for want of prosecution beca use the parties ’ motion to reinstate was not verified o r supported by a sufficient s ubstitute for verific ation and thus d id not extend the timetable for filing a not ice of appeal , and the parties filed their notice of appeal more than 45 days after the d ismissal order).

C. Conclusion Accordingly, we dismiss t he appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction

. This court previ ou sly order ed that Saint Val ’ s January 7, 2021 m otion in this court be taken with the case

. Because we lack appellate juris diction , we also dismiss this
motion for want of jurisdiction.

/s/ Randy Wilson J ustice

Panel consists o f Chief Justice Christopher and Justic es Spain and Wilson

.