argues the trial court erred in not setting and holding an oral hearing on his motion to reinstate after his suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3) requires a trial court to set an oral hearing on any timely filed and properly verified motion to reinstate after dismissal of a suit for want of prosecution. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 165 a(3); Thordson v. City of Houston, 815 S.W.2d 550, 550 (Tex.1991). Here, appellant’s affidavit accompanying his motion to reinstate is not properly verified as required by Rule 165a(3). Specifically, the affidavit attached to the motion to reinstate addresses only appellant’s indigence and does not reference the attached motion to reinstate. See Guest v. Dixon, 153 S.W.3d 466, 468 (Tex.App.Amarillo 2004, pet. filed) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the affidavit attached to the motion
holding warrant not undermined and affiant did not act in bad faith where affiant relied upon erroneous statements made by third party holding that an appeal was not equitably moot because the person who was issued the money was a party and was aware when the payment was made that the award would be appealed holding that seventh application for postconviction relief which was rejected because evidence on which it was based was not properly authenticated was properly filed holding motion to reinstate was not properly verified because affiant was former attorney of party and because alleged verification was incomplete holding rule 80bd motion was properly denied because petitioner was not entitled to relief as a matter of law