See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 6 5 a
. 1 Jeff r ey Fi t ch i s now d eceased

. 2 

### NUM BER 13-06- 706- CV



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
ROB ERTH OLE M A N TW IST, A pp ellan t,
v . M cA L L EN N A

T IO N A L B A N K , ETA L., A pp ellees . On ap pe al f rom th e 9 2n d Dist rict C ou rt o f H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , G arza , a n d V el a Opin ion b y

Ju stice Ya ñe z Appel lan t, Rob ert Hol eman Tw is t, appeal s from the tr ial co urt’ s o rd ers d is mis si ng his ca se for w ant o f pros ecut ion and deny ing hi s mot ion to re ins tate. Ap pel lee s, McAl len 1 Nation al Ban k, Robe rt W illiams, Jeff rey Fitch, and Grace Neuh aus-Richa rds (collectiv ely 2A p p e l l e e s R a y T h o m a s , V e ro n i c a G o n za l e s , a n d th e l a w fi rm o f K i ttl e m a n , T h o m a s , R a m i re z & 3 G o n za l e s , P .L .L .C ., h a v e n o t m o v e d to d i s m i s s b u t h a v e a d d re s s e d th e i s s u e o f ju ris d i c ti o n i n th e i r a p p e l l a te b r ie f . B e c a u s e w e h o ld th a t w e la c k j u r is d ic tio n o v e r t h is a p p e a l, a n d th is is s u e m u s t b e a d d r e s s e d e v e n if not r ai sed by t he par t i es, we gr ant t he m ot i on t o di sm i ss as t o t he ent i r e cau se an d al l app el l ees. See G uest v. D i xon , 1 5 3 S .W .3 d 4 6 6 , 4 6 7 (T e x . A p p .– A m a ril l o 2 0 0 4 ), re v ’ do n o th e r g ro u n d s , 195 S. W

. 3d 6 87 ( T ex. 2 0 0 6 ). See, e. g. , Tw ist v. M cAll en N at ’

l Bank , 248 S. W

. 3d 3 51, 355 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 200 7, or i g. 4 pro c ee di ng ).

See Tw ist

v. McA ll en Nat ’

l Bank , N o. 13- 04- 613- C V, 200 5 W L 15 72738 , at * 1 ( T ex. App. –C or pus 5 C h ris ti J u l y 7 , 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p .) (p e r c u ria m ). 2 “t he Ban k p arti es” ) hav e fil ed a moti on to dismi ss the cas e for lack of j ur is dicti on. Fi ndi ng that w e l ack

j ur is dicti on ov er the appeal , w e g ra nt t he moti on to di smi ss the appeal as to all parties. 3 I. Background This ca se is one of sev eral filed by Tw is t ar is ing out of a tr a n sf e r o f m oney by McAllen Nation al Ban k (“ the Bank”) outof one o f T wis t ’s a c c oun ts. In trial court cause 4 number C -3 690- 99- A ( the “ firs t lawsui t” ), Tw is t broug ht sui t ag ain st the Bank , al leg ing that it improp erly

a llow ed his w ife, Brend a Grig gs, to t ransfer m one y o ut of h is a ccoun t. Twist ag re ed to se ttl e tha t l aw sui t for $75,000 , but before the t ri al cour t ent ered j udg ment on the set tl ement, Tw is t at tempted to rev oke his co nsent. T h e B a n k mov ed to enforc e the settle me nt agreem ent . Th e trial court granted the Ba nk’s mo tion, resulting in tw o orde rs dis mis si ng the lawsui t on Janua ry 19, 2001 an d Apr il 29, 2002. On May 24, 200 4, T w ist f iled an app eal f rom th e April 29, 200 2 orde r. T his Court dism issed th at ap pea l as untim ely on Ju ly 7, 200 5. T w ist co nte nde d tha t the t rial court’s

5 orde r dismissing his case w as inte rlocuto ry and f iled nu me rous m otion s i n t he trial cou rt attempt ing to re surre ct t h e c lai ms, ult imat ely resul ti ng i n a p eti ti on for w ri t of mandamusTw ist , 248 S. W

. 3d a t 357
- 58. 6 T hi s not i ce do es no t app ear i n t he r ecor d. However , T wi st doe s not di sput e t hat he r ecei v ed t he 7 not i ce. 3 and a sec ond app eal bei ng fil ed w it h thi s C our t. 6 W hile T w ist’s first ap pea l w as pe ndin g, on Octob er 8, 200 4, he f iled suit in trial court
cause num ber C -228 1-A (the “ secon d law suit”) against the Ban k partie s and Ray Th om as, Veroni ca Gonz ale s, and t he law firm of K it tl eman, Thomas, R amirez& G onz ale s, P.L. L.C ., ( c o l l e c t i v e l y

“ K i t t l e ma n ” )

. I n t h i s s e c o n d l a w s u i t , T w i s ta l l e g e d v a r i o u s fraudul ent and tor ti ous act s b y

thes e par

ti es that occ ur re d before , du rin g, an d after the firs t l aw sui t and it s s ettl ement. On Novemb er 2, 20 04, Kittlem an f iled a plea in aba tem ent , arguing tha t Twist’s f irst lawsui t i nv olv ed th e s ame parties and cl aims and that an appe al w as pendi ng from t he judgme nt in tha t case. Thu s, Kittlem an request ed th e cou rt t o a b a t e t he se cond law suit “p endi ng di spos it ion of the ap p e a l. ” On Nov ember 15, 2004, the t ri al cour t g ra nted the moti on. The order sta ted that the moti on for abatement w as g ra nted “for al l pur poses and tha t the presen t procee ding is abate d pe ndin g f urthe r order of the Cou rt.” Al thoug h Tw is t’ s first appeal w as dis mis sed on Ju ly 7, 2005, no a cti on w as tak en in the s econd l aw sui t t hroug hout the e nd of 2005 and the f irst hal f of 2006. On Aug ust1, 2006, the t ri al cour

t s ent n oti ce that it int ended to di smi ss the sec ond l aw sui t for w ant o f prosec uti on. The co urt s et a hear ing on t he di smi ss al for Sep tember 19, 2006. At the 7 h e a ri n g, T wis ta rg u e d t h a tt h e re h a d b e e n n o a c t io n in t h e ca s e d u ri n g t h e p r e v i o u s two y ears b ecaus e of the abatement order

. The cour t, how ev er , dis mis sed the c ase for w ant of pros ecut ion

. The cour t’ s o rd er st ated, i ncor re ctl y , t hat there had been no oppos it ion to4

the c our t’ s mot ion to dis mis s. On Oct ober 6, 2006, the Bank par

ti es and Ki ttl eman fil ed a
mo tion to correct or ame nd th e orde r dismissi n g t h e s u it

. The y argued tha t the court’s
order w as inc or re ct in sta ti ng thatthere w as no oppo si ti on to the moti on to di smi ss
. T w ist then f iled three mot ions to reinstate o n Octob er 1 3, 14, a nd 17, 2 006

. I n the se moti ons, he all eg ed that the tr ial cour t’ s order w as inc or re ct becau se he had oppos ed th e dis mis sal . Addi ti onal ly , he arg ued that the abatement p re v ented the c our t from dis mis si ng for w ant o f

p ro secut ion. An ident ical v erif ication sig ned byStep hen T. L eas, Twist’s attor ney , w as attac hed t o al l three of the moti ons to rein sta te. Itst ated: BEFORE M E, t he u nd ers i g ne d N ot ar y P ub l i c , on t hi s d ay

p ers on all y appeared STEPH EN T. LEA S, a person w hose i denti ty i s k now n to me. After I admini ste re d an oath t o hi m, upon him [si c] oath he s aid he read t he foregoing and a ttach ed p lead ing, and th at the f acts state d in it are w ithin his personal kn ow led g e and/ or bel ief, as i ndi cat ed, a nd are tr ue and cor re ct. Now her e, ho w e v e r , d o t h e m o t i o n s t o re i n s t a t e i n d i c a t e w h i c h fa c t s a r e b e i n g s w o r n to base d on Lea s’s persona l know ledge as op pose d to his be liefs. On O cto ber

19, 2006, the t ri al cour t hel d a h ear ing on t he moti on to amen d the jud g ment a nd on Tw is t’ s mot ion s t o rein sta te. N eit her the Bankpar

ti es nor Ki ttl eman raised an y

o bje c t io n t o t he m otion s to reinsta te or the v erif ication s. Th at da y , the court is sued an amended order of dis mis sal for w ant o f pros ecut ion , t his ti me cor re ctl y noti ng that Tw is t had appea re d to oppos e the di smi ss al. The order st ated that the c ause had been ab ated pendi ng appeal and that the a p p eal w as dis mis sed on J uly 7, 2005, after
w hic h Tw is t t ook no ac ti on. The order di d not , how ev er , den y the moti on to rein sta te. Beca use an amended order of di smi ss al w as entered, Tw is t filed y et another moti on to rein st a te o n N ov ember 16, 2006. This moti on reci ted, in g re at de tai l, the facts of the
cas e from i ts inc e p tion, i ncl udi ng al l the e v ents l eadi ng up t o the first and t he s econdT wi st asser t s t hat t he d at e of Leas’ s f i r st appea r ance i n t he case al l eged by t he Bank par t i es an d 8 Ki t t l em an i s “ f al se an d m i sl eadi ng” and poi nt s out t hat Lea s app ear ed a t t he Sept em ber 19t h he ar i ng. T he Bank par t i es an d Ki t t l em an r espond t hat al t hough Lea s app ear ed at t he Sept em ber 19t h he ar i ng, he f i l ed a fo rm a l n o ti c e o f a p p e a ra n c e i n th e c a s e o n O c to b e r 3 , 2 0 0 6 , a n d th a t i s th e b a s i s fo r th e i r s ta te m e n t.

See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 4

. N o v e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 f e l l o n a S u n d a y . T h u s , u n d e r R u l e 4 , t h e d e a d l i n e to 9 f i l e t he n ot i ce of

app eal woul d not i ncl ude t hat S undayand w oul d i nst ead be M onday , N ov em ber 20, 200 6. I d. 5 lawsui ts. Ag ain , this m oti on to rein sta te c ontai ned t he s ame v er ific ati on as the firs t t hree moti ons to rein sta te, and now here i n the moti on di d Leas i ndi cat e w hic h facts he v er ified base d on his person al knowledge as opp osed to his beliefs. T h e t ri a l c o u rtse ta h e a ri n g o n t h is m o t io n fo r De c e m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 6

. T h e s a m e d a y, the B ank par

ti es and Ki ttl eman filed a respon se to t he moti on, o bje cti ng to the v er ific ati on
as fatall y defecti v e. Fi rs t, they

arg ued t hat t he moti on mus t be v er ified bas ed on personal know led g e and not o n m e re i nformati on or bel ief. Seco nd, t hey

arg ued t hat L eas w as incom pet entto v erif

y the m otion to reinsta te becau se he w as not T w ist’s attorne y of record unti l approx imat ely

Oc tober 3, 2006; thus , he did not hav e personal kn ow le d g e of the

8 procedu ra l ev ents pr ior to that date. Acc ordin g ly , the Bank par ti es and Ki ttl eman arg ued that, i n the abs ence of a proper ly v er ified moti on to rein sta te, the co u rt was w it hout jur is dicti on to rein sta te t he c ase becau se it s p len ar y pow er ex pired th ir

ty day s a fter t he amended order

di smi ss ing the cas e for w ant o f pros ecut ion , on Nov ember 20, 2006. 9 At the h earing, Lea s co mp lained t hath e received t he Ban k p arties’ and Kittlem an’s obj ect ion s t o hi s v er ific a ti o n i m m e dia tel y before the h ear ing , and he a sk ed th e c our t t o
sw ear hi m in as a w it ness
. Leas pur por ted t o s w ear

to por ti ons of the pl eadi ng bas ed on his personal know led g e, but he conc eded that most of t he ev ents detai led in th e moti on
occ ur re d before he b ecame Tw is t’ s a ttor ney
. After the h ear ing , t he tr ial co urt s ust ain ed the B ank par

ti es’ and Ki ttl eman’s obj ect ion to the v er ific ati on, and it hel d that Leas w as notSee T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 2 6 .1

. 10
See i d. 11 6 c o mp e t e n tt o v e r i fy

t h e p l e a d i n g a n d t h a ti t s p l e n a r y p o w e r e x p i r e d i n t h e abs ence o f a proper ly v erif ie d moti on. Leas re q uest ed findi ng s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law on Decem ber 7, 2 006 , and f iled a no tice of app eal th at sam e da y . He filed a notice of past due findi ng s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law on D ecemb e r 2 9, 20 06, b ut no ne w ere ev er filed by the tr ial co urt. This appeal ens ued. II. Discus sion Tw is t rais es fiv e i ss ues in his appeal , arg uin g thatthe tr ial co urt: (1 ) abused i ts discretion bydete rmining tha t the verifica tion was insuf f icient to exten d its plena ry power; (2 ) er re d byf ail ing to file findi ng s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law ; ( 3) abus ed i ts dis creti on in dis mis si ng the cas e for w ant o f pros ecut ion w hen t he ca se wa s abated; ( 4) er re d by ref using to reinsta te th e case ; a n d ( 5 ) e rred in conclud ing that T w ist failed to timely prose cute his case. T he Ba nk pa rties a nd Kitt lem an h ave respond ed to all these
arg uments , and the Bankpar ti es hav e fil ed a moti on to di smi ss the a ppeal for l ack of jur is dicti on. Spec ific all y , t he Ban k p arti es arg ue th at t he amended order of di smi ss al on Oct ober 19, 2006, w as the f ina l order in this case, and in the absenc e of a proper ly

v er ified moti on to r e i n s t a t e , T w i s t ’ s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w a s d u e t h i rt y d a y s l a t e r , o n N o v e mb e r 20, 2006. Tw is t’ s n oti ce of ap peal w as not filed unti l Dec ember 7, 2006, and ac cordin g to the

10 Bankpar ti es, it w as therefore un ti mely and faile d to inv oke thi s C our t’ s j ur is dicti on ov er

the appeal

. Ordina rily , a n otice o f

app eal m ust be f iled thirty days af ter a f inal judgme nt is si g ned. A v er ified motion to re ins tate must be fil ed w it hin 30 d ay s a fter t he order of 11See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 6 5 a (3 ); M cC onnel l v. May , 80 0 S

. W

. 2d 19 4, 19 4 (T ex
. 19 90 ) ( pe r cu ri am ). 12

See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 2 6 .1 (a )( 3 ). 13 See But t s v. C api t ol C i t y N ur sing Hom e, I nc. , 7 0 5 S .W .2 d 6 9 6 , 6 9 7 (T e x . 1 9 8 6 ); Silguer o v. St at e, 14 N os. 13- 07- 113- C V, 13- 07- 434- C V, 2009 W L 26 5071, at * 3 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i Jan. 30, 200 9, or i g. p ro c e e d i n g ); O w en v. H odge , 8 7 4 S .W .2 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 3 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 1 9 9 4 , n o w rit ).

See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 9 3

. 15 7 dis mis sal for w ant o f prosec uti on. A proper moti on to re ins tate filed w it hin 30 d ay s a fter 12 t h e d is m is s a l e xt e n d s t h e a p p e ll a t e t im e t a b le s , m a k in g t h e n o t ic e o f a p p e a l d u e 9 0 d a ys
a f t e r t h e ju d gm e n t wa s s ig n e d

. I f a m o t io n t o re in s t a t e is n o t ve ri f ie d o r su p p o rt e d b y a 13 suf f icient sub stitute for the verificat ion, it i s in ef fective to extend th e trial court’s plen ary pow er or the appel lat e ti metabl e. T hus, if T w ist’s m o t io n t o r einsta te w as no t prope rly 14
v er ified or suppo rt ed by a suffici ent subs ti tute, w e w oul d l ack j ur is dicti on ov er

thi s a ppeal becau se Tw is t’ s noti ce of ap peal w as filed more tha n thi rty day s a fter t he order

di smi ss ing the c ase. The Bank

parti es arg ue th at t he v er ific ati on w as defecti v e bec ause itdi d notst ate that itw as based on L eas’ s personal know led g e, and in fact, at the h ear ing on D ecember 5, 20 05, L eas admit ted t hat h e di d nothav e personal know led g e of mos t of t he facts in the moti on to rein sta te be caus e he had notappeared i n the ca se unti l September 19, 2006. W e ag re e. W hil e r ule 165a does not e x pre ss ly re qui re t h a t th e ve ri ficat ion be b ased on persona l kn o wl edg e, w e not e tha t i n many othe r cont exts, thatreq uirement ha s b een imp lied. For ex am ple, in rule 93 of the T exas Ru les of

Civ il Procedu re, a de fend antis required to v erif

y certain de fense s. Sig nif icantly, the rule provides tha t a few of those 15S e e i d

. a t R. 9 3 (7 ), (8 ), (1 3 )( a ), (1 3 )( g ), (1 5 ). 16 See C ant u v. H oli day I nns, I nc. , 910 S. W

. 2d 1 13, 116 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 199 5, wr i t den i ed) 17 ( “ [ W ] e t her ef or e ag r ee wi t h ou r si st er cour t t hat R ul e 93 ( 13) , whi ch exp l i ci t l y pr ov i des f or v er i f i cat i ons u pon i nf or m at i on a nd b el i ef , l ogi cal l y i ndi cat es t ha t the rem ai nderof R ul e 93 r equi r es a v er i f i cat i on b ased upon per sonal knowl edge

. . . . ”) ; see also R eyna v. N at ’ l U nion Fire I ns. C o. of Pi t t sbur

gh, Pa. , 883 S. W

. 2d 3 68, 370- 73 ( T ex. A pp. –El P aso 1994) (“ W e bel i ev e t he pr ov i si ons o fR ul e 93 whi ch al l ow aff i dav i t s base d up on i nfo rm ati on an d b el i ef reg ard i ng ce rt ai n s pe c i fi ed m att ers e ffec t i vel y requ i re pe rso na l k no w l ed ge for m att ers i n v o l v i n g th e re m a i n i n g s u b s e c ti o n s o f R u l e 9 3 .”), rev’ d on other

gr ounds , 897 S. W

. 2d 7 77, 778
- 79 ( T ex. 1 9 9 5 ). R e y n a , 8 8 3 S .W .2 d a t 3 7 2

.

18 8 defenses maybe v er ified on infor mati on and bel ief. W e hav e hel d tha t i f the s ubsecti on 16 of rul e 93 does not spec ific all y prov ide thatthe v er ific ati on of a defense may be made on infor mati on and bel ief, t hen i t mus t be v er ified bas ed on personal kn ow ledge

. The 17
re asons for req uir ing v er ific ati ons to be made on personal kn ow led g e are s ound: A c ompell ing reason for t he r ule i s s o t hat t he par ti es, the cour

t, and i ts off ic ers may

be put on noti ce that the aff ian t know s w hereof he sp eaks , and tha t he ha s person al knowledge of the m atte rs t o wh ic h h e sw ears an d is putti ng i nto is sue. The pa rt ies , t he c our t, and i ts off ic ers n eed t o k now , and hav e a r ig ht t o k now , w hether or not the a ff ian t has personal kn ow led g e of suc h matt ers. They

sh oul d notbe c ompell ed to i nq uire b y in te rrog ator y or depos it ion as to w hether or not the aff ian t has personal kn o wledg e. Addi ti onal ly , w it hout suc h i nformati on presentin the af fidav it , the c our

t and it s o f f ic e rs wil l n o tkn o w if

t h e a f f i a n tis in co m p li a n c e wit h wh a twe b e li e ve to be the desi re of the Tex as Supreme Cou rt that the aff ida v itbe b ased on pe rs o n a l k n o w l e d g e
. O p e n n e s s i n t h e p o s i t i o n s o f t h e p a rt i e s h as been a cont inu ing aim of

the cour ts of thi s State si nce the Supreme C our t ena cte d the R ule s o f Ci v il Proc edure some fiftyy ears a g o, w hic h r ule s, among othe r acc ompli shment s, abol is hed t he g eneral demur re r. W e feel itw as in keepi ng w it h the Supreme C our t' s a im for

openne ss betw een l it ig ants co nce rn ing thei r posi ti ons to re qui re the aff ida v itbe b ased upon pe rs onal kn ow led g e. Req uir ing a s h o w i ng of personal kn ow led g e nor mall y tak es li ttl e effort, re sul ts in no det ri ment t o the af fiant, and app ri ses the cour t and i ts off ic ers o f the source of the affiant' s a ss erti on. 18 These reas ons appl y

equal ly to a motion to rei nst ate, in w hic h a par ty w il l li kel y

be raising arg um ent s base d on facts th at do not ap pea r of record in order to e x plain th e lackSee T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 165 a( 3) ( “ T he co ur t shal l r ei nst at e t he case upon f i ndi ng a f t er a hear i ng t hat 19 t he f ai l ur e oft he par t y or hi s at t or ney w as not i nt ent i onal or t he r esul t ofconsci ous i ndi ff er ence but was du e t o a n a c c i de nt or m i s t ak e o r t ha t t he fai l ure ha s be en ot he rw i s e rea s on ab l y ex pl ai ne d.” ).

1 9 5 S .W .3 d 6 8 7 , 6 8 8 (T e x . 2 0 0 6 ) (p e r c u ria m ). 20 I d. 21
I d. 22
I d. 23 9 of acti v ity

i n a c ase. Ac cordin g ly , al thoug h the r ule does not spec ific all y st ate t hat t he 19
v er ific ati on m u stbe b ased on personal kn ow led g e, w e bel iev e tha t t he pur pose of the
v e r i fi c a t i o n i s not s e r

v e d i f t h e v e r i fi c a t i o n i s b a s e d o n m e r e i n fo r ma t i o n a n d b e l i e f. Furthe rmore , the suprem e cou rt ce rtainly could h ave inclu ded “info rmat ion an d be lief” in the r ule , as i t has i n oth er r ule s, had i t s o des ired. But itdi d not

. In Gues t v

. D ixon , t he Tex as Suprem e Cour t c onsi dered th e c ontours o f the
v er ific ati on req uirement, address ing si mil ar , butdi sti ng uis habl e, arg uments

. I n tha t c ase, 20 Gues t s ued D ix on, a nd th e tr ial co urt ev entual ly di smi ss ed th e c a se f o r w ant o f prosec uti on. G uest ’s att or ney s fil ed a m o ti o n t o rein sta te t he c ase and at tac hed an

21 af f idavit from Guest ’s fo rmer cou nsel explaining the ina ctiv ity in th e case, a nd th e af

f idavit sta ted i t w as based on the for mer attor ney ’s perso nal know led g e. Di x on arg ued t hat t he 22
v erif ication w as de fective, and did noto pera te to extend the app ellate timet able s, beca use it w as signed by Gue st’s forme r at torne y a nd also beca use the forme r at torne y ’s af f idavit did no t accou nt for the two y ears of inactivi ty in the case tha t occurred af ter the atto rney’s
re present ati on te rmi nated. 23 T he co urt of

app eals he ld tha t the v erif ication wa s in suf f icient be cause the ruleSee G uest v. D i xon , 1 5 3 S .W .3 d 4 6 6 , 4 6 8 ( T e x . A p p .– A m a r illo 2 0 0 4 ) ( “ H e r e , h o w e v e r , th e a ff id a v it 24 ofone of

G uest ' s f or m er at t or ney s doe s not am ount t o v er i f i cat i on b ecause t he agencyr el at i onshi p ha d c e a s e d to e x i s t.”), re v ’d , 1 9 5 S .W .3 d 6 8 7 (T e x . 2 0 0 6 ).

I d. 25 G u e s t, 1 9 5 S .W .3 d a t 6 8 9

. 26
I d. at 688

. 27
Id

. a t 6 8 9

. 28
I d. 29
S e e i d

. a t 6 8 8

. 30 10 re qu i r e d t h e ve ri f ic a t io n t o b e si gn e d b y G u e s t ’s a t t o rn e y, n o th is fo rm e r a t t o rn e y. 24 Addi ti onal ly , t he c our

t of appeals held that the v er ific ati on w as inc omplet e i n tha t i t di d not
acc ount for th e i nact iv ity thatoc cur re d after

the attor ney

ce ased re present ing Gues t. 25 On ap peal, t he s upreme co urt hel d tha t t he v er ific ati on req uirement c oul d be sat is fied by

the aff ida v itof a former att or ney , ev en thoug h the ru le re q uires the moti on to
re ins tate to be ve rif ied by the mov ant o r his att or ney
. The c our t not ed th at i ts re cent 26
cas es hav e held that “procedu ra l ru les should be cons tr ued and appli ed so that the r ig ht of appeal i s n ot un neces sar il y l ost to t echni cal it ies .” F urther more, the cour t hel d tha t t he 27 aff ida v itw as suffici ent t o i nv o ke t he c our t of appeal s’ j ur is dicti on ev en th oug h i t fail ed to explain tw o y ears of

in activity

in t he case. T he court held t hat“while the atto rney's lack

28 of know led g e may

g o to the mer it s o f the rein sta tement moti on, i t doe s n ot de pr iv e the
cour t of j ur is dicti on.” 29 W e agree tha t the rig ht of app eal should not be lost to a tech nicality. Ho we ver, 30
w e find Gues t dis ti ng uis habl e bec ause in that cas e, t he attor ney ’s af fidav itdid, in fact, s tateI d. 31
T wi st r el i es on 3V, I nc. v. JTS E nt er pr ises, I nc. , 4 0 S .W .3 d 5 3 3 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 32 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t.). In th a t c a s e , t h e m o ti o n to re i n s ta te w a s n o t ve rifi e d , b u t t h e a tto rn e y s a tta c h e d tw o a ff i d a v i ts to t h e m o ti o n
. I d. a t 5 3 8

. The s e a ff i d a v i t s d i d n o t e x p r e s s l y s t a t e t h a t t h e y we r e b a s e d o n t h e af f i ant s’ p e rs o n a l k n o w l e d g e
. I d. However , t he co ur t hel d t hat t he f act s re ci t ed i n t he ve r i f i cat i on m ade i t cl ear t hat th e v e rifi c a ti o n w a s b a s e d o n p e rs o n a l k n o w l e d g e
. Id

. L eas’ s v er i f i cat i on d oes n ot m ake any such showi ng. S e e C a n tu , 910 S. W

. 2d a t 116 ( “ A par t y ' s at t or ney m ay v er i f y t he p l eadi ng wher e he has k nowl edge oft he fa c ts , b u t d o e s n o t h a v e a u th o rit y to ve rify b a s e d m e re l y o n h i s s ta tu s a s c o u n s e l .”). A c c o rd i n g l y , 3V is di st i ngui shabl e.

2 0 0 9 W L 2 6 5 0 7 1 , a t *3 (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). 33 11 t h a th e h a d p e rs o n a l kn o wle d ge o f t h e fa c t s t o wh ic h h e t e s t if ie d

. T h e fa il u re t o ve ri f y a 31 p le a d in g b a s e d o n p e rs o n a l k n o wle d ge , wh e n t h a tis re qu ir e d , i s h a rd ly a t e c h n ic a li t y. W hil e the cou rti n Gues t rejecte d Dix on’s argum entthatjurisdiction w as lacking becau se the attor ney

l ack ed k now led g e of and fail ed to ex pla in tw o y ears o f inac ti v ity , t hat i s n ot t he
same a s t he s it uati on here, w here the att or ney ’s v er ificat io n di d noti ndi cat e tha t he had p e rs o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f any of the facts

. W e ag re e w it h the g eneral p ro p o si ti on th at a moti on w it h a v er ific ati on th at on ly v er ifies par

t of the facts w il l su f

f ice to extend the appel lat e ti metabl es; how ev er , a v er ific ati on th at do es not i ndi cat e tha t t he person si g nin g the af f idavit has person al knowledge of at least so me of

the facts is no verificatio n at all. Leas’ s v er ific ati on di d noti denti fy w hic h facts h e w as v er ify ing bas ed on personal knowledge as opp osed to his belief or informa tion p resen ted to him . Accordingly , w e ho ld th a t the v er ific ati on of a moti on to rein sta te mus t be based on p ersonal kn ow led g e, an d Leas’ s v er ific ati on w as ina deq uate. 32 As w e recent ly

hel d i n Si

lgu er o v . St ate , how ev er , “ an unv er ified moti on to re ins tate
mu s tb e s u p p o rt e d b y

a n a ffi d a v it o r other

su ffici ent e vidence in the record i n order to
extend the t ri al cour

t' s p len ar

y pow er or extend the t ime to fil e a n oti ce of appeal .” “ The 33 aff ida v itor

othe r ev ide nce must ser v e as an a deq uate s ubst it ute for the v er ific ati onId

. 34
See i d. 35
C f

. I n re Dobbins , 247 S

. W

. 3d 394, 396- 97 ( T ex. App. –D al l as 20 08, or i g. pr oceedi ng) ( hol di ng t hat 36 e v i d e n c e p re s e n te d a t h e a rin g c o n d u c te d w i th i n th i rty d a y s a fte r d a te o f d i s m i s s a l w a s a s u ff i c i e n t s u b s ti tu te for t he veri fi c ati on requ i rem en t ). 12 re q uirement es tabl is hed by the ru les of ci v il procedu re .” Ag ain , a subs titute maybe 34 adeq uate if i t i s a n ac cept abl e method of prov ing the facts upon w hic h the mov ant reli es to rein sta te t he c ase. Tw is t rais es sev eral arg uments i n thi s reg ard. Fi rs t, Tw is t arg ues that he at tac hed
n u m e ro u s document s t o hi s mot ion to re ins tate. H e not es that the B ank par ti es and Kittlem a n d id n o t obje ct to the se do cum ent s. He arg ues th at th ese d ocum ent s conta in
sev e ra l verificat ion s b y Tw is t hi msel f, not Le as, pur por tedl y es tabl is hin g the facts upon
w hic h the moti on to rein sta te w as based

. W e hav e l ocat ed onl y one v er ific ati on i n the
re cord s ig ned by

Tw is t. Iti s attac hed to a moti on that w as filed in the firs t law sui t, and t he all eg ati ons in the d ocumentthat are v er ified do not i ncl ude t he abat ement i n the se cond lawsui t or

ex pla in the ina cti v ity

i n the se cond lawsui t. Ac cordin g ly , Tw is t’ s v er ific ati on of that documentdoes not ser v e as an a deq uate subs ti tute for Leas ’s defecti v e v er ific ati on. 35 Seco nd, Tw is t arg ues that Leas testi fied at the hear ing on Dec ember 5, 2006, and sta ted t hat h e had personal kn ow led g e of the facts suppo rt ing the re ins tatementmoti on. The probl em w it h thi s a rg u m e n t is that, by the ti me the hear ing w as condu cte d, t he tr ial court ha d alread y

lost plena ry

power beca use th e mo tion to reinstate was not prop erly
v erif ied. T hus, Lea s’s testimo ny at th e he aring w as not time ly and w as notprope rly before the t r i a l c o u rt

. A c c o rd i n g l y , t h e r e i s n o s u b s t i t u t e fo r t h e d e fe c t i v e v e r i fi c a t i o n i n the 36 record, a nd th e mo tion to reinstate did notexten d the app ellate timet able s.See G uest , 1 5 3 S .W .3 d a t 4 6 7 , re v ’ do n o th e r g ro u n d s , 1 9 5 S .W .3 d 6 8 7 (T e x . 2 0 0 6 ). 37 See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26

. 1(a )( 2), (4). 38 C i ty o f M c A ll e n v . R a m ire z, 875 S. W

. 2d 7 02, 704
- 05 ( T ex. A pp
. –C or pus Chr i st i 199 4, or i g. 39 p r o c e e d in g ) ( “ T o a l l o w a p la in tif fto c ir c u m v e n t t h e v e r if ic a tio n r e q u ir e m e n ts o fR u le 1 6 5 a ( 3 ) b y m e r e ly c h a n g i n g th e c a p ti o n o f h i s m o ti o n w o u l d b e c o n tra ry to th e p u rp o s e o f t h e ru l e , a s w e l l a s i n c o n s i s te n t w i th th e g e n e ra l p rin c i p l e th a t m o ti o n s a re ju d g e d b y th e i r s u b s ta n c e ra th e r th a n th e i r ti tl e s .”). 13 T w ist also app ears to a rg ue th at the lack of person al knowledge is a “form” de fect that must be rais ed in w ri ti ng , and he shoul d hav e had an oppo rt uni ty to cure the defect. T w ist argues thatt he d efective v erif ication w as no t poin ted out un til a fe w minu tes be fore the D ecember

5, 2006 hear ing

. How ev er , becau se a proper v er ific ati on w as re q uired to
extend the a ppel lat e ti metabl e, w hic h affect s thi s Cou rt ’s jur is dicti on, the defect c annot be
w aiv ed by

fail ing to ra is e i t i n the tr ial co urt. W e hav e a d uty to ra is e the i ss ue on our ow n,
e ve n in t h e a b s e n c e o f a n o bje c t io n b y t h e o p p o s in g p a rt y. 37 Al ter nati v ely , Tw is t arg ues that he fil ed other moti ons that extended the a ppel lat e ti metabl es. H e arg ues that he fil ed a m o ti on to modi fy the j udg ment and a req uestfor findi ng s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law , w hic h h e a rgu e s e xtended the a ppel lat e ti metabl es. Tw is t c it es to hi s N ov ember 16, 2006 mot ion to re inst a te , in w hic h he 38
co m p lai ns that the O cto ber 19, 2006 order

pur por ts to l ift t he s tay

and inc lud es findin gs that shoul d n o t b e i n clu d ed i n a j udg ment. N ow here, ho w ev er , doe s Tw is t as k t he tr ial court to mod if

y t he judgme nt to dele te tho se provisi ons as an altern ative rem edy. Rath er, his prayer for relief

mere ly asked the trial court to reinsta te the case on its docke t. Twist
canno t es cape the v er ific ati on req uirement by att empti ng to re cas t hi s mot ion to re ins tate
as a moti on to modi fy the j udg ment. 39 Fur th e rm o re , a re q uestfor fin din g s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law mustbe fil edT EX
. R. C IV
. P. 296
. 40 S e e B u rn s v . D re w W o o d s , I n c ., 90 0 S

. W

. 2d 12 8, 12 9 (T ex
. A pp
. –W ac o 1 99 5, w ri t de ni ed ). 41 R am irez , 875 S. W

. 2d a t 705

. 42 14 tw enty day s a fter t he j udg ment i s s ig ned. The ju d gm e n t was sig ned on Oct ober 19, 40 2006, and t herefore, any req uestfor fin din g s o f f a ct and conc lus ion s o f law w as due on Nov ember

8, 2006. T w is t, how ev er , did not f il e his re q uestuntil December 7, 2006, after the t ri al cour

t den ied his moti on to rein sta te. Tw is t app arentl y bel iev es that a req uestfor findi ng s o f factca n be filed after an o rd er deny ing a motion to rei nst ate. But such an order is not a “ jud g ment.” Thus , Tw is t’ s req uestfor fin din g s o f fact and conc lus ion s o f law w as 41 late, and it was ine f

fective to e xten d the a ppe llate tim eta bles. More imp ortan tly , howev er, thi s C our t has hel d tha t a v er ified m oti on to rein sta te i s t he ex cl usi v e method for e xtendi ng the t ri al cour

t’ s p len ar

y pow er to re v iew

a pr ior order di smi ss ing a c ase f o r w ant o f prosec uti on. 42 III. Conclusi on For al l the foreg oin g reason s, w e g ra n t the Bank par ti es’ moti on to di smi ss and dis mis s t his appeal i n its entirety for lack of jur is dicti on. In Tw is t’ s respon se to t he moti on to di smi ss , Tw is t as ks thi s C our t t o s anct ion the Bankpar ti es and Ki tt le m a n for v ar iou s alleged m isrepresen tatio ns. W e f ind no merit to th ose arg um ent s. Accordin gly , w e also den y Twist’s request for sanctio ns.

LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, J u s t i c e Opinio n de liv ered and f iled this the 3 0th d ay

of June, 2009.