You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

in Re Boglia, L.L.C. D/B/A/ Best Western Beachfront Inn

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-11-00891-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 21, 2011; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the relator, Boglia, L.L.C., operating as Best Western Beachfront Inn, petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel a trial judge to vacate an order reinstating a lawsuit. The underlying lawsuit involved claims of invasion of privacy and property destruction, initially filed by a plaintiff against Boglia and another defendant. The trial court had dismissed the lawsuit on July 7, 2011, for want of prosecution. The plaintiff later filed an unverified motion to reinstate the case, which the court granted on September 30, 2011, despite its plenary power having expired thirty days post-dismissal. Under Texas law, plenary power may be extended only through timely filed verified motions, which was not the case here. Consequently, the reinstatement order was void. The appellate court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, requiring the trial court to vacate the reinstatement order and dismissing all other pending motions as moot. The decision was issued by Justice Rebeca Huddle, with Chief Justice Radack and Justice Bland concurring, emphasizing the necessity for verified motions to sustain jurisdictional authority beyond the plenary period.

Legal Issues Addressed

Plenary Power of Trial Courts

Application: The trial court's plenary power expired thirty days after the dismissal of the case for want of prosecution, rendering any subsequent orders void.

Reasoning: The trial court dismissed the case for want of prosecution on July 7, 2011. Bolton subsequently filed an unverified motion to reinstate the case on August 8, 2011, but the trial court’s plenary power, which lasts thirty days post-dismissal, had already lapsed before the reinstatement order was signed.

Requirement for Verified Motions

Application: The court's plenary power is not extended by an unverified motion; hence, Bolton's unverified motion did not affect the court's jurisdiction.

Reasoning: Texas law mandates that a trial court's plenary power is extended only by timely filed verified motions. Since Bolton’s motion was unverified, it did not extend the court’s plenary power.

Void Reinstatement Orders

Application: A reinstatement order issued after the expiration of the court's plenary power is void and subject to being vacated.

Reasoning: The reinstatement order was deemed void. The court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate the reinstatement order.