Ashley & Laird, L.C. and John Hamilton v. Jess Gilbert, 05-15-00707-CV

Appellants Ashley & Laird, L.C. and John Hamilton appeal a March 18, 2015 dismissal for want of prosecution after arbiration proceedings and fee payment issues.
The trial court originally compelled arbitration and closed the case administratively, with reopening contingent on notification by any party.
Arbitrator closed the arbitration after appellants did not respond to a fee request; appellee moved to reopen and dismiss for want of prosecution.
Appellants filed an unverified motion for new trial, rehearing, and plea to the jurisdiction on April 17, 2015; hearing occurred June 1, 2015.
Appellee argues the unverified motion did not extend the appellate deadline and the notice of appeal filed June 4, 2015 was untimely.
We hold that without a verified motion to reinstate, the notice of appeal was due within 30 days of dismissal; the June 4, 2015 notice is untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appellate notice after dismissal	Ashley & Laird contend reinstatement efforts extend appeal time.	Gilbert argues only a verified motion to reinstate can extend deadlines.	Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Gilbert v. Huber, Hunt, Nichols, Inc., 671 S.W.2d 869 (Tex. 1984) (verified reinstatement required; rule 165a(3) exclusive remedy)
Butts v. Capitol City Nursing Home, Inc., 705 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1986) (verified reinstatement extends time for appeal)
McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. 1990) (unverified reinstatement does not extend plenary power)
City of McAllen v. Ramirez, 875 S.W.2d 702 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1994) (verbatim rule on reinstatement and timeliness)
In re Dobbins, 247 S.W.3d 394 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (evidentiary hearing as substitute for strict verification)
In re Valliance Bank, 422 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012) (affidavit within 30-day period can cure defects)
Guest v. Dixon, 195 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. 2006) (affidavit can satisfy verification requirement)