2000 WL 280438, at *2 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] March 16, 2000, no pet.); see also General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. City of Houston, 857 S.W.2d 731, 733-34 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) (because both notice of intent to dismiss and dismissal order contained improper and incomplete address, trial court abused discretion in refusing to reinstate case). The record establishes that notice was sent to the Danny Drive address and returned as undeliverable. The record also shows that previous notices sent to the Danny Drive address were returned undeliverable. Because Sweed properly updated his address with the court, notice was inadequate on the face of the record. See Dickerson v. Sonat Exploration Co., 975 S.W.2d 339, 342-42 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1998, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); Transoceanic Shipping Co., Inc. v. General
holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding dismissal for want of prosecution improper where notice of hearing was mailed to an address that was different from the most recent filings and the record and envelopes were returned undeliverable and noting that when the notice was returned undeliverable court personnel should have reexamined the file to determine if there was evidence of a more recent address holding that the trial court erred in failing to mail the notice of intent to dismiss to the more recent address included on the lawyers letterhead instead of to the address listed on the partys live pleading holding that where trial court erred in applying established law to the facts of the case it must be reversed and remanded for a new hearing to give the trial court an opportunity to address the issue holding that the trial court erred in failing to address holiday visitation