in Re: Yolanda Ruiz Rodriguez, 05-17-00121-CV

Underlying 2014 partition suit involving real property; relator (Yolanda Ruiz Rodriguez) holds a 25% heir interest and was a named defendant who did not appear until Jan. 13, 2017.
Trial court set a February 13, 2015 scheduling conference by written order that warned failure to attend or submit an agreed scheduling order could result in dismissal for want of prosecution.
Real parties in interest failed to appear at the Feb. 13, 2015 scheduling conference and the court signed a dismissal for want of prosecution that same day.
Real parties filed an unverified motion to reinstate on March 2, 2015; the trial court signed an order reinstating the case on March 27, 2015 and later entered an agreed judgment appointing a receiver and a default judgment against relator.
Relator moved to vacate the March 27, 2015 reinstatement order and all subsequent orders, arguing the reinstatement was signed after the trial court’s plenary power expired because the motion to reinstate was not verified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an unverified motion to reinstate extends the trial court’s plenary power after dismissal for want of prosecution	Real parties (plaintiff) implicitly: their timely but unverified motion sufficed to preserve jurisdiction	Relator: unverified motion did not extend plenary power; reinstatement signed after plenary period is void	Held: Unverified motion did not extend plenary power; reinstatement signed after plenary expiration is void
Whether lack of notice that dismissal could be under inherent authority defeats dismissal	Real parties: Order did not notify dismissal could be for lack of prosecution under inherent power; dismissal thus improper	Relator: Order and dismissal gave adequate notice of both bases; record shows parties received the scheduling order	Held: Notice was adequate; dismissal grounds were stated and parties received the order
Whether orders entered after void reinstatement must be vacated	Relator: All orders after void reinstatement are void and should be vacated	Real parties: Implicitly argue later actions valid despite procedural defect	Held: All orders issued after the expired plenary period (post–March 15, 2015) are void and must be vacated
Whether laches or delay bars mandamus to vacate void orders	Real parties: not argued as dispositive here	Relator: laches should not bar vacatur of void orders	Held: Mandamus is available to vacate void orders; laches does not bar such relief

Veterans' Land Bd. v. Williams, 543 S.W.2d 89 (Tex. 1976) (trial court authority to dismiss for want of prosecution)
Bevil v. Johnson, 307 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. 1957) (inherent power to dismiss)
Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck & Equip., 994 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. 1999) (inherent dismissal power requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. 1990) (unverified motion to reinstate does not extend court’s plenary power)
In re Florance, 377 S.W.3d 837 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (orders signed after plenary power expires are void)
State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484 (Tex. 1995) (post-plenary orders are void)