§ 16.064.Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction

The savings statute, and one of the most valuable provisions in the chapter for a claimant who has made a mistake.

The period between the first filing and the second filing of the same action in a different court suspends limitations, on two conditions.

First, the first action must have been dismissed, or the judgment set aside or annulled in a direct proceeding, because of lack of jurisdiction in that trial court. Second, the action must be commenced in a court of proper jurisdiction not later than the 60th day after the dismissal or other disposition becomes final.

"Becomes final" is the phrase to watch. The 60 days runs from finality, not from the signing of the order, so a dismissal under appeal has not started the clock — and a claimant who assumes otherwise may act too early rather than too late.

The ground is confined to lack of jurisdiction. A dismissal for want of prosecution, on the merits, or as a sanction is not covered, and the case cannot be revived by refiling.

Subsection (b) removes the protection from the party who did it on purpose: the section does not apply if the adverse party has shown in abatement that the first filing was made with intentional disregard of proper jurisdiction.

Note the procedural detail there — the objection must be raised in abatement, and the burden is on the party asserting it. Honest error is protected; forum-shopping through a court known to lack jurisdiction is not.

The section suspends rather than extends. It removes the interval between the two filings from the count, so a claim that had a week left when it was first filed still has a week.

Read it alongside the relation-back provision for amended pleadings, which solves the neighbouring problem of a claim added late in the right court.