DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 17, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00618-CV MICHAEL WHITE, Appellant V. KAY VARGAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-15134 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burn s, Justice Molberg, and Justice Pedersen, III Opinion by Chief Justice Burns The trial court dismissed the underlying case for want of prosecution on January 27, 2023 and appellant filed a timely motion to reinstate. On April 25, 2023, the trial court denied ap pellant’s motion to reinstate. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 21, 2023 stating he was appealing the April 25t h order. Because the dismissal order triggered the time to f ile the notice of appeal and appellant did not file a notice of appeal within ninety days of the signing of that order, we questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal and directed the parties to file letter briefs. See Weik v. Second Baptis t Church of Houston , 988 S.W.2d 437, 438 (Tex.–2– App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. deni ed) (when party files motion to reinstate following dismissal of case for want of prosecution, dismissal order and not order denying motion to reinstate is appealable order); see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1(a), 26.3 (when party files timely motion to reinstate, notice of appeal due ninety days after judgment signed or, with an extension moti on, fifteen days after the deadline). Without a timely filed notice of appeal , this Court lacks jurisdiction. See Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C. , 302 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2009, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) (timely filing of notice of appeal jurisdictional). In his jurisdictional brief, appellant asserts that the order denying his motion to reinstate is appealable. Appellant mi sconstrues our jurisdictional concern. Our concern is not that the order cannot be re viewed, it is that the time for filing the notice of appeal runs from the order of di smissal. Although a party may complain about the denial of a motion to reinstat e on appeal, the appealable order which triggers the time to appeal is the dismissal order. See Weik , 988 S.W.2d at 438. Rule 26.1 of the Texas Rules of A ppellate Procedure provides that the time to file a notice of appeal runs from the date the judgme nt is signed. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1. Here, the trial court signed the or der of dismissal on January 27, 2023. Because appellant filed a timely motion to reinstate extending the appellate timetable, the notice of appeal was due on April 27, 2023 or, with an extension motion, May 12, 2023. See id . 26.1(a), 26.3. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on–3– June 21, 2023, forty days past the last possible deadline. Because the notice of appeal was untimely filed, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

230618F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT MICHAEL WHITE, Appellant
No. 05-23-00618-CV V. KAY VARGAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-15134. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Pedersen, III participating. In accordance with this Court’s op inion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee KAY VARGAS recover her costs of this appeal from appellant MICHAEL WHITE.
Judgment entered April 17, 2024