Civ. P. 329b. If within that time a party files a motion for a new trial or a motion to vacate, modify, correct, or reform the judgment, then the trial court’s plenary power is'extended for thirty days after the last such motion is expressly or implicitly overruled. Id. The Manns contend that the sanctions order is void because the trial court signed it more than thirty days after it signed the final judgment even though no one filed a motion that extended the trial court’s plenary power. They acknowledge, however, that the Texas ■ Supreme Court has held that any timely filed motion for a substantive change in the existing judgment is a motion to modify that extends the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction. See Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308, 314 (Tex.2000) (<HOLDING>). The Manns attempt to distinguish Lane on
holding that absent a timely postjudgment motion the trial court has no jurisdiction to alter amend or vacate a final judgment holding that a motion to continue a hearing on a postjudgment motion was ineffective to extend the period for the trial court to rule on the motion absent the express consent of the parties holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable  holding that a postjudgment motion to incorporate a sanction as part of the final judgment is a motion to modify the judgment and extends the trial courts jurisdiction recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment