rescheduled hearing in Texas

2004Id. at 232 .

1990To the contrary, Hines argues that the judgment should be affirmed because he established sufficient notice by the fact that his written notice properly addressed to Hash was returned with the notation “unclaimed.” Wright v. Wentzel, 749 S.W.2d 228, 232 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no writ) (holding that a letter, mailed to the address provided by a litigant to inform her of the rescheduled hearing on a motion to modify conservatorship, but returned “unclaimed” was sufficient notice).

2025But courts, including our court, have held “that the [21-day] requirement for notice of hearing does not apply to a resetting of the hearing, provided the nonmovant received notice [21] days before the original hearing.” 10 Magnuson v. Mullen, 65 S.W.3d 815 , 824 & n.8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. denied) (first citing LeNotre v. Cohen, 979 S.W.2d 723, 726 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied); and then citing Birdwell v. Texins Credit Union, 843 S.W.2d 246, 250 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, no writ)); see also Wilson v. Dorbandt, No. 03-14- 00553-CV, 2016 WL 768143 , at *5 (Tex.

2025But courts, including our court, have held “that the [21-day] requirement for notice of hearing does not apply to a resetting of the hearing, provided the nonmovant received notice [21] days before the original hearing.” 10 Magnuson v. Mullen, 65 S.W.3d 815 , 824 & n.8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. denied) (first citing LeNotre v. Cohen, 979 S.W.2d 723, 726 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied); and then citing Birdwell v. Texins Credit Union, 843 S.W.2d 246, 250 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, no writ)); see also Wilson v. Dorbandt, No. 03-14- 00553-CV, 2016 WL 768143 , at *5 (Tex.

2024Williams v. Bell, 402 S.W.3d 28, 34 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. denied).5 Prosperity filed its motion for summary judgment on August 3, and its notice of submission on August 4.