By JoAnn Storey

The twenty-one day notice requirement for the hearing on a motion for summary judgment does not apply to a resetting of the hearing, provided the nonmovant received notice twenty-one days before the original hearing. LeNotre v. Cohen, 979 S.W.2d 723, 726 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied); Birdwell v. Texins Credit Union, 843 S.W.2d 246, 250 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, no writ); Hart v. State, No. 03-02-00542-CV, 2003 WL 549273, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.). The reasoning behind the twenty-one day requirement in rule 166a(c) is to give the nonmovant sufficient time to prepare and file a response for the original setting. LeNotre, 979 S.W.2d at 726. By rescheduling a hearing, the movant is actually giving the nonmovant additional time to respond. Id. Therefore, a party need only give reasonable notice that a hearing on a summary judgment has been rescheduled. Id. Reasonable notice, however, means at least seven days before the hearing on the motion because a nonmovant may only file a response to a motion for summary judgment not later than seven days prior to the date of the hearing without leave of court. Id. But see Brown v. Capital Bank, N.A., 703 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (holding three days was sufficient notice of the rescheduled hearing because nonmovant had notice of the motion for summary judgment more than seventy-five days prior to the final hearing).