## In the Court of Appeals S econd Appellate District o f Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 23

- 00086

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 48th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 048

- 335909

- 22
Before Bassel, Womack, and Walk er, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Bassel 

### M IKE 

### W ILLIAMS AND 

### R ICHARD 

### M ICHAEL 

### , Appellants
V 

### . NE CS F IRST 

### N ATIONAL 

### , LP , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Introduction After a convoluted seri es of events , A ppellan t s Mike Williams and Richard Mich ael

— who were not parties to a procurement agreement between Appellee NE CS First Nation al, LP (N E) and Pur chasing Solu tions International, Inc

. — ended up as parties to amendments to the procurement agreement, and those amendments stated that Appellants would convey to NE their personal interes t in three condominiums in Mexico. When Michael i nformed N E ’ s attorn ey that he w ould not proceed with the conveyance, NE sought and obtained a temporary injunction, enjoini ng Appellants from taking various actions, including conveying the condomi niums to anyone other than NE

. Williams an d Mich ael 1 have eac h file d a

n o tice of a ppeal and appellate brief challeng ing the te mporary
- injunction order on various grounds: Williams raises eleven iss ue s , and Michael , who incorporates Williams ’ s arguments into his brief, raises an addition al issue. On its face, the tempora ry
- injunct ion order does no t comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the trial court ’ s order is void. Accordi ngly , w e dissolve th e order an d remand f or further p roceedings.

1 As set forth in the record, Williams an d Michael are le gally married , b ut they h ave different roles in t he unde rlying litigation and have appe ale d separately

.3 II. Bac kground Afte r the hear ing on the temporary

- injunction application and the subm ission of post

- hearing briefs by the parties, the trial court granted NE ’ s applica tion for a temporary injunction

. The trial court ’ s order includ ed the following: [NE has] presented evidenc e that Wil liams and Michael agreed to convey certain properties to [NE] in satisfaction of a debt. Th e properties are specified in [NE ’ s p] etition and in the [a] pplication, and are identifie d as

. . . follows:

[Appellant s] have presented various defens es to [NE ’ s] claims. The [c] ourt finds that [NE ] has established a probable right to relief, and probable injury if the relief requested in the [a] pplication is not granted. There fo re, in o r der to mai ntain the st atus quo during the litigation, the [c] our t finds th at the Application should be granted. Following those recitations, the order enjoined Williams and Michael 2

— as well as

“ their officers, agents, servants, emp l oy ees, and attorneys, and all tho se acting in concert with them who receive notice of the order by persona l service or otherwise ”

— from c onveying or encumbering the condominiums in any manner other

2 The o r der also n amed an entit y , but that entity is not involved in this appeal

.4 than to NE, materially altering the condominiums in any wa y , “ destruc ting the

con dominiums , ” a nd f ailing to maintain the condominiums. The tempo rary
i njun ction order set the case for trial and set NE ’ s bond

. I II. The Temporary
- Injunction Order Is Void Although ne ither Williams nor Michael ra i se d any ch allenges to t he temporary

inj unctio n order ’ s compliance with Texas Rule of Ci vil Procedure 683 , we cannot affirm a void order. We therefore set forth the standard of review and the mandatory requirements of Rule 683, followed by our analysis of wh y the te mporary
- injun cti on order at issue fails to conform to Rule 683 ’ s requirements an d is therefore void

. A. T he Standard of Review The decision to grant or deny a request for a temporary injunction is within the trial court ’ s discretion, and we will no t revers e its decisio n absent an abuse of discretion. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co. , 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (T ex. 2002) (op. on reh ’ g)

. In ordering temporary

- injunctive relief, a trial court abuses its discretion if it does not strictly comply with the requir e me nt s of R ule 683

. Hom e Asset, Inc . v. MPT of Victory Lakes Fcer, LLC, No. 01

- 22

- 00441

- CV, 2023 WL 31833 22, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] May 2, 2023, no pet. ) (mem. op.)

. B. Applica ble Law Rule 683 , which governs the form and scope of temporary i nj un ctions , sets forth mandatory re quirements that a trial court must abide by when ordering the extraord in ary reme dy of a temporary injunction. Id. If the trial court does not do so,5 its order is vo id. Id. ; SISU Energy, LLC v. Hartman , No. 02

- 19

- 00436

- CV , 2020 W L 4006 725, at *14 (Tex. A pp.
— Fort Worth July 16, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.)

. Rule 683 requ ires , among other things , that every order granting an injunction “shall set forth the reason s for its issuance ” and “ shall be specific in terms .” Tex. R. C i v. P . 683. Rule 683 al so requires that a temporary

- injunc tion order state precisely why the applicant w ould suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction preserving the status quo p ending a trial on the mer its

. Home Asset , 2023 WL 3183322, a t * 2 ; SISU Energy , 2020 WL 4006725, at *14

. Even when a lawsuit relates to real estate in some fashion, the tr ia l c ourt is not excu sed from Rule 68 3 ’ s mandate that a temporary

- injunction order explain why irreparable harm will result without an injunction

. Ho me Ass et , 2023 WL 3 183322, at * 4. An unsupported or conclusory statement in the order that irrepara ble harm wo uld occur is insufficient to satisfy Rule 683. Home Asset , 2023 WL 3183322, at * 2 ; SISU Energy , 2020 WL 4006725, at *14

. As the Houston Fi rs t Cour t of Appe als has further explained, Due to Rule 683’s explicit mandate that a trial court spec ify its rea sons for the issuance of a temporary injunction in the temporary

- injunction order itself, we cannot infer the reasons for an injunction from th e pleadi ngs, evidence presented a t the hearing on the application, or the trial court ’ s oral pronounce ment. Acco rdingly, we cannot affirm a temporary

- injunction order that does not comply with Rule 683 on the ground that the trial court nonetheless mad e a r easona ble decision based on the un derlying facts of the case. Because a temporary

- injunction order that does not satisfy Rule 683’s requirements is void, rather than voidable, error pres ervation is not required. Indeed, an appellate court must diss o lv e a void temporary

in junction ord er even if the litigants do not raise the issue on appeal.6 Home Ass et , 2023 WL 3183322, at * 2 (cit at ions omitted) ; see also Clark v. Hastings Equity Partners , LLC , 651 S.W.3d 359, 3 70 n.8 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Dist .] 2022, no pe t. ) ( “ In deed, even wh ere a party does not raise the issue, courts may sua sponte declare a te mporary inj unction order void if it does not comply with Rule 683. ” )

. C. Analysis In the temporary

- injunction order, the trial court found that NE “ ha [d] establ is he d a pr obable right to relief [] and probable injury if the relief requested in the [a] pplica tion [was] not granted

. ” This is even less speci ficity and reasoning than what the San Anto nio Court of Appeals has held t o violate Rule 683 ’ s requi rements. In M al

donado v. Franklin , the sole re asoning given in the temporary

- injunction o rder was tha t “[t ]he [c]ourt finds that the Plaintiffs have a probable right of recovery in this cause and that a temporary injunction is warranted and necessary to p revent irrep ar ab le har m, for which the Plaintif fs have no adequate remedy at law. ” No. 04

- 18

- 00589

- CV, 201 9 WL 451735 , at *2 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Feb. 6, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.)

. The San An tonio court ex plained that [c] ontrary to Rule 683 ’ s requireme nts, the ord er d oes no t specificall y state the reasons for granting the injunction. The order ’ s conclusor y statement s, unsup ported by any facts, that the “injunction is warranted and necessary to prevent irreparable harm” and that the [appell ees ] “have n o adequate r em ed y at l aw” do not me et Rule 683 ’ s requirements for specificity.7 The order fails to state, with specif icity, the reasons why the [appellees] would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction did not issue; it does not meet Rule 683 ’ s requir ements. Id. ( ci tation s omitted). H ere, th e tem porary
- injunction order, on its face, contains only a conclu sory
statem ent of probable injury , which cannot support injunctive relief

. Moreover , the order is completely devoid of any recital of the immin ent a nd irrepara b le h arm th at might flow to NE in th e absence of a temporary injunction. Even if the trial cour t concluded that NE would suffer irreparable harm, the injunction is void because the trial court did not recite any facts and include an explanation supporting i t s conclu sion; thus, i t did not me et the mandate of Rule 683 requiring it to “set forth the

re asons for i ts issuance

. ” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 683; Quintanilla v. De La Rosa , No. 13

- 20

- 00575

- CV, 2021 WL 3085854, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christ i

– Ed inburg July 22 , 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (hol ding tempora ry
- injunction or der void because it did not
conta in any stat ement explaining the reason s for its issuance ); Grounds v. First GroundRock Royalties, LLC , 629 S.W.3d 674, 678 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 202 1, no pet.) (h ol ding t emporary
- injunction orde r void becau se its reference to the a pplication d id not satis fy Rule 683 ’ s requirement that the order specifically state “the reasons why injury will be suffered if the interlocutory relief is not ordered ” ); V a ntage Bank T

ex . v. Gon zalez , No s . 13

- 19

- 00265

- CV , 13

- 19

- 00 371

- CV , 2020 WL 1615662, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edi nburg Apr. 2, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that even if the trial court concluded that the party seeking the injunction would suffer8 irreparable harm, the injunc ti on was v oid if the court did no t recite the facts and include an explana tion supporting its conclusion ) ; Maldonado , 2019 WL 451735, at *2

. IV. C o nclusion Having held that the temporary

- injunction order does not compl y with R ule 683 , w e declare the tempo r a ry
- i njun ction order void, we di ssolve the t emporary i njunction, and we reman d the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because of this conclusion, we do not reach A ppellants ’ issues. See Tex

. R. App. P. 47.1. We furthe r in st ruct the clerk of this c our t to issue t he mandate immediately. See Tex. R. App. P. 18.6; SISU Energy , 2020 WL 4006725, at *1 7 (citing Helix Energy Sols. Grp., Inc. v. Howard , 452 S.W.3d 40, 45 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th D ist.] 2014, no pet. ) , and diss ol vi ng a v oid temporary injunctio n and direct ing the clerk of the appellate co urt to issu e the mandate immediately)

. /s/ Dabney Bassel Dabney Bassel Justice Delivered: July 27, 2023