Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Interra Credit Union, an Indiana-based credit union, financed an automobile purchase for Enrique Figueroa Laboy through a secured retail installment sale contract. When Laboy defaulted on his monthly payments, Interra repossessed and sold the vehicle, leaving a deficiency balance of $23,366.15. On March 8, 2024, Interra sued to recover this balance.
On January 31, 2025, Interra filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court held a hearing but did not rule, instead granting Interra leave to correct deficiencies and refile. The trial court then placed the case on the dismissal docket under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a and scheduled a dismissal hearing for June 18, 2025. Interra’s counsel failed to appear at that hearing, and the trial court dismissed the case for want of prosecution on June 25, 2025.
On July 17, 2025, Interra filed an unopposed motion to reinstate, explaining that the failure to appear was an accident caused by the hearing not being properly calendared—not conscious indifference. Although Interra made multiple subsequent attempts to set a hearing on the reinstatement motion, the trial court never scheduled one. The motion was eventually overruled by operation of law after 75 days elapsed without a ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The 15th Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to set a hearing on Interra’s motion to reinstate. Under Rule 165a(3), once a motion to reinstate is timely filed with the district clerk, the judge must set a hearing “as soon as practicable.” The court clarified that this obligation is non-discretionary and the burden to schedule the hearing falls on the judge, not the moving party.
The court rejected the trial court’s apparent assumption that Interra bore responsibility for setting the hearing. The record showed multiple attempts by Interra to contact the court to schedule the hearing, but nothing excused the judge’s failure to act. The court emphasized that a party seeking reinstatement is not required to set the hearing or even request one—it is the judge’s obligation.
The court also held that the trial court’s failure to hold a reinstatement hearing was not harmless error. Unlike some cases where parties had participated in at least a dismissal hearing, Interra here had no opportunity to be heard at either a dismissal or reinstatement hearing. Accordingly, the court could not conclude that due process had been satisfied, and remanded the case for the trial court to conduct the required reinstatement hearing and determine whether reinstatement should be granted.
Key Takeaways
- Trial judges have a non-discretionary duty to set hearings on timely filed motions to reinstate under Rule 165a(3)
- The burden to schedule reinstatement hearings falls on the trial judge, not on the party seeking reinstatement
- A moving party is not required to take affirmative steps to set a reinstatement hearing or even request one
- Failure to hold a reinstatement hearing is reversible error when the dismissed party had no prior opportunity to be heard
- On remand, the trial court must hold the reinstatement hearing and determine whether the failure to appear was intentional or the result of conscious indifference
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies critical procedural safeguards in dismissal for want of prosecution cases. By placing the burden squarely on trial judges to schedule reinstatement hearings, the court ensures that parties cannot be deprived of the opportunity to contest dismissal due to administrative failures or calendaring mistakes. The ruling reinforces that due process requires a meaningful hearing before a case can be permanently dismissed.
For practitioners, the decision is significant because it provides appellate protection for parties whose cases are dismissed due to counsel’s inadvertent failures to appear. The court’s emphasis on the judge’s responsibility to set hearings—rather than placing responsibility on the moving party—creates an objective standard that prevents trial courts from circumventing Rule 165a’s reinstatement procedures through inaction.