Can a verification required for a motion be e-signed? .... /s/ _____________

Under section 132.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, “an unsworn declaration may be used in lieu of a written sworn declaration, verification, certification, oath, or affidavit required by statute or required by a rule, order, or requirement adopted as provided by law.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §132.001(a).

A Houston court of appeal panel recently held that the verification requirement for a motion to reinstate can be satisfied with an e-signature under Chapter 132 even if the attorney's name is merely typed next to /s/ for signature, as is now standard practice for efiling pleadings, motions, and other litigation documents. 

Gillis v. Harris County, No. 14-17-00122-CV (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] Jun 21, 2018) 

The motion for reinstatement after DWOP of that case was therefore effective in extending the deadline to appeal, saving the appeal from dismissal due to a notice of appeal that would otherwise have been untimely. The panel also held that the omission of certain information (incl. declarant's address and date of birth) required for unsworn declarations under CPRC section 132.001 was not fatal. On the merits of the appeal for want of prosecution, the court reversed and sent the case back to the trial court.  —

The motion containing the purported verification was electronically filed. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21(f) provides two different forms of acceptable electronic signatures for e-filed documents. Under subsection (A), “a ‘/s/’ and name typed in the space where the signature would otherwise appear” is acceptable as a signature “unless the document is notarized or sworn.” Under subsection (B), “an electronic image or scanned image of the signature” is acceptable. Therefore, the subsection (B) option must be used whenever a “document is notarized or sworn.” Watts’s signature was clearly of the subsection (A) variety. The key point, though, is that the motion to reinstate was not “notarized or sworn.” 

As discussed above, Watt instead used an “unsworn declaration” under Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 132.001 in lieu of a verification. His electronic signature in the format provided by Rule 21(f)(A) was therefore a valid signature.5 Because Watts’s signature was valid and the verification sufficient, we have jurisdiction to consider Gillis’s appeal. See supra n.2

Gillis v Harris County: Denial of Motion to reinstate case after DWOP reversed 

Excerpt from Defendant's Brief complaining that Chapter 132
form requirements for unsworn declarations were not followed 

DWOP ORDER 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REINSTATE AFTER DWOP