must first resolve a jurisdictional issue raised by Appellees involving the timeliness of Appellants’ notice of appeal. The trial court signed the original judgment on May 29, 2009. On June 25, 2009, Appellants timely filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R.CivP. 329b(a)(requiring motion for new trial to be filed prior to or within thirty days after the judgment or other order complained of is signed). Because the motion for new trial sought a substantive change in the judgment, it extended both the time for filing the nptice of appeal and the trial court’s plenary power to grant a new trial, or to vacate, modify, correct, or reform the judgment. See Tex.R.App.P. 26.1(a)(1); Tex.R.Civ.P. 329b(e); Lane Bank Equipment Co. v. Smith Southern Equipment, Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308, 313 (Tex.2000)(<HOLDING>). The trial court’s plenary power to grant a
holding that any motion made within ten days of entry of judgment which seeks a substantive change in the judgment will be considered a rule 59e motion which suspends the finality of the judgment and tolls the time to appeal holding that a timely filed motion for sanctions which specifically requested modification of judgment extended trial courts plenary power holding that only a motion seeking a substantive change in a judgment will extend the appellate deadlines and the trial courts plenary power holding that a nonpartys motion for new trial and petition for intervention filed after the trial court signed a final judgment did not extend the courts plenary jurisdiction recognizing the supervisory power of appellate courts