Joe E. Henderson v. Marilyn Kay Blalock, 465 S.W.3d 318

In July 2010 Henderson sued Blalock seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (adverse possession); little activity followed after initial filings.
After ~3+ years of inactivity, the trial court issued a notice of intent to dismiss (Jan 9, 2014), held a show-cause hearing, retained the case, and set it for trial in May 2014.
The record shows only limited activity after the notice: attempts to effect service, a counsel-substitution motion, and a motion for service by publication.
On May 5, 2014 the parties did not appear for the trial; on May 6 the court dismissed the case for want of prosecution and mailed notice May 7.
On May 9 Henderson’s counsel filed a verified motion to reinstate stating counsel had “overlooked the trial setting”; no written order was entered on the motion, so it was overruled by operation of law.
The court of appeals affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in either the dismissal or the denial of reinstatement and rejecting Henderson’s jurisdictional challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to reinstate	Henderson: counsel overlooked the trial setting; reinstatement warranted	Blalock: plaintiff did not negate all possible grounds for dismissal and offered no adequate proof	Denied — motion insufficiently explained delay, failed to negate other dismissal grounds; no abuse of discretion
Whether dismissal for want of prosecution was an abuse of discretion	Henderson: asserted diligence/ready for trial (but unsupported in record)	Blalock: case was dormant for years and plaintiff failed to prosecute or appear	Affirmed — excessive pendency, little activity, failure to appear; dismissal proper under court’s inherent authority
Whether dismissal was void for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendant	Henderson: court lacked jurisdiction over Blalock because service was defective, so dismissal void	Blalock: dismissal for want of prosecution does not require personal jurisdiction over defendant	Rejected — lack of service does not bar dismissal for want of prosecution

MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74 (Tex. 1997) (standard for reversing dismissal for want of prosecution)
Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck & Equip., 994 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. 1999) (rule 165a authority and administrative time standards)
Jimenez v. Transwestern Prop. Co., 999 S.W.2d 125 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (factors for dismissal for want of prosecution; due diligence test)
Smith v. Babcock & Wilcox Constr. Co., 913 S.W.2d 467 (Tex. 1995) (standard for reinstatement under rule 165a(3))
Sutherland v. Spencer, 376 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. 2012) (forgetfulness alone may be insufficient to set aside default; context matters)
Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1990) (default judgments require strict compliance with service rules)