Reve rsed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 11 , 2023.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00477

- CV

JOE SELVERA AND TINA SELVERA , Appellant s V. ESTELLA CHAVARRIA, AS THE GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE OF FLORINDA SELVERA, AN INCAPACI TATED PERSON , Ap pellee
On Appeal from the Probate Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR

- 0082112

MEMORANDUM OPINION App ellants, Joe Selvera and Tina Selvera , b ring this interlocutory appeal of the probate court ’ s temporary

- injunction order th a t do es not contain a trial date for the permanent injunction

. See Tex. Civ. P r ac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (4)

. The order enjoined the Selveras from selling the ir real property , “ making any changes to the home ” located on the property , and d estroying o r r emoving any
per s onal property belonging to F lorinda Selvera rema ining on the property

. We2 concl ude the probate court abused its discretion and declare the order void

. T he probate court signed t he temporary

- injunction order in a guardi an ship
procee ding af ter an evidentiary hearing

. 1 On appeal, the Selveras ar gu e that the order is void able because it : (1) does not set a trial date on the permanent injunction ; (2) destroys , ra ther than preserves, the sta tu s quo; and (3) there is no evidence to demonstrate t he gu ardian ’s probable right of recovery

. W hether to grant or deny a request for a temporar y injunction is within the trial court ’ s discretion, and we will not reverse that order absen t a clear abuse of discr etion. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co ., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002) ; Walling

v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1993). There is no abuse of discretion as long as some evidence reasonably supports the trial court’s ord er
. Butn ar u , 84 S.W.3d

a t 211

. The procedural req uirements of Rule 683 are mandatory. Qw est C omm c ’ns. Corp. v. AT&T Corp. , 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam) . A tempor ary - injunction order that does not meet these r equirements is “subject to being declared void and dissolved.” Id

. ; InterFirst Bank San Felipe , N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co. , 715 S .W. 2d 640, 641 (Tex. 198 6) (per curiam)

. Among other thi n gs , Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 requires every order granting a temporary inj u nction to “[ set ] the cause for trial on the merits with

res pect to the ultimate relief sought.” Tex. R. Civ. P

. 68 3

. Here , t he ord er does not
set the cause for trial o n the me rits. While appellee a dmits the order does not address a trial setting , she ar gues that the pro bate court set the case for t rial on the

1 On June 9, 2023, t he Selveras f iled a n amended peti tion for writ of mandamus in this court. See T ex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 2 2.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. The Selveras asked this court to compel the probate court to vacate the temporary restraining order that it signed and dismiss the in jun ction proceedin g, which w as pending at the time. However, we denied the petition concluding the Selveras had not established the y were entitled to mandamus relief

. In re Selvera , No. 14 -22-00400- CV, 2022 WL 2092817, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] June 10, 2022, no pet.).3 merits via a docket

- control order. Appellee also ar g ues tha t the probate court has indicated its intention to sign a modified t emp orary injunction. However, t he clerk ’ s record neither contain s a modified temporary injuncti on , nor a d ocket

- control order ; regardless, the or der must be complete on its face to com ply with Rule 683. See Kaufmann v. Morales , 93 S.W.3d 650, 65 6

– 5 7 (Tex. Ap p.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) ( “ including a general date on a docket sh eet does not meet the requirements or the purpose of Rule 683 ” )

. Because the probate court ’ s order doe s no t comply with the mandatory
requ irements of Rule 683, we co nclude the probate court abused its discretion when i t s igned the order

. InterFirst Bank San Felipe , 715 S.W. 2d at 641 ; Helix Energy Sols. Group, Inc. v. Howard , 452 S.W.3d 40, 44 (Tex. App

. — Ho usto n [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.)

. Therefor e, the temporary injunction order is void and diss olved for failure to comply w ith Rule 683. Se e Tex. R. Civ. P. 683 ; see also Qwest , 24 S.W.3d at 337

. We sustain th e S el ver a s ’ s sole issu e and dissolve the prob a te cour t’s order granting the temporary injun c tion

. 2

/s/ Charles A. Spain Justice

Panel consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain , and Poissant

.

2 We n eed not address Selv era s ’ s rem a ining two arguments supporting this issue

. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1

. Because thi s is an interlocutory appeal of the probate court ’ s order granting temporary injunction , only that order is before this court

— not t h e entir e trial

- court case. We do not remand the case to the trial court because the case is not before us. Chappell Hill Sausag e Co. v. Durrenberger , No. 14

- 19

- 00897

- CV, 2021 WL 2656585, at *5 n.6 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] June 29, 2021, no pet.) (m e m. op.)

.