Opinion issued October 13, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00314-CV

———————————

WEST I-10 VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, Appellant

V.

HARRIS COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT NO. 48, Appellee

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2015-38121

O P I N I O N

West I-10 Volunteer Fire Department appeals from an interlocutory partial 

summary judgment and order requiring it to turn over three fire trucks to Harris 

County Emergency Services District No. 48. Although we normally lack 

jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders, the Department argues that we may 
2

review this interlocutory order because it modifies an earlier temporary injunction 

issued and is, therefore, appealable under Section 51.014(a)(4) of the Civil Practice 

and Remedies Code. See Ahmed v. Shimi Ventures, L.P., 99 S.W.3d 682, 689 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (Section 51.014(a)(4) grants

interlocutory review of orders modifying temporary injunctions).

We conclude, however, that the order does not actually modify the 

temporary injunction. Because we lack jurisdiction to review the interlocutory 

order the Department is challenging, we dismiss the Department’s appeal.

Background

District 48 and the Department cooperated for many years to provide fire 

protection services to residents in western Harris County. District 48, a political 

subdivision of Texas, was created in 1984 to provide fire protection services to 

western Harris County. For the past several decades, District 48 has provided 

these services through contractual agreements, under which the Department has 

provided the services, and District 48 has provided the funding. 

In 2014, District 48 decided to begin providing the services itself and 

terminated its contract with the Department. District 48 claimed that it owned all 

fire protection vehicles and equipment purchased by the Department with District 

48 funds. It demanded that the Department turn over possession of all property it 

had purchased with District 48 funds, but the Department refused. The 
3

Department disputed District 48’s ownership claim, arguing that it owned the 

property because the property was purchased with funds paid to the Department by 

District 48 as consideration for the services the Department had provided under the 

contracts. District 48 filed this lawsuit to recover the disputed property from the 

Department. 

In 2015, the trial court issued a temporary injunction. The temporary 

injunction ordered the Department to turn over possession of certain vehicles to 

District 48—specifically, those emergency vehicles to which District 48 then held 

title—which were specifically listed in two sections of an attachment to the 

injunction. Vehicles to which District 48 did not then have title were listed in a 

third section of the attachment. Because ownership of those vehicles had not been 

resolved, they were not ordered to be turned over. The temporary injunction 

enjoined both parties “from damaging, removing, or disabling . . . vehicles . . . 

awarded to the other party . . . .” However, no vehicles were actually awarded to 

the Department in the order.

In 2016, District 48 moved for partial summary judgment on ownership of

three vehicles—the Rescue, the Quint, and the Pumper (the “Trucks”)—that had 

been identified in the third section of the attachment to the temporary injunction 

and therefore had not previously been ordered to be turned over to District 48. The 

trial court found that District 48 owned the Trucks, granted District 48’s motion for 
4

partial summary judgment on the ownership issue, and signed an order 

commanding the Department to turn over the Trucks within five days. 

The Department appealed the interlocutory order, claiming it modified the

temporary injunction the trial court issued earlier.

Jurisdiction

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. 

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be 

appealed only if authorized by statute. Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 

24 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. 2000); Ahmed, 99 S.W.3d at 688.

Section 51.014 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code authorizes certain 

interlocutory appeals. It provides, in part, that “[a] person may appeal from an 

interlocutory order of a district court . . . that . . . grants or refuses a temporary 

injunction or grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction . . . .” 

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(4).

Because an order that modifies a temporary injunction is the equivalent of an 

order that dissolves a temporary injunction and grants a new one, Section 51.014 

grants an appellate court “jurisdiction to review an order modifying a temporary 

injunction by interlocutory appeal.” Ahmed, 99 S.W.3d at 689 (citations omitted). 

In such an appeal, we may review only those parts of the order that are injunctive. 
5

“When a portion of an order is injunctive, and another portion is not, we 

may review only that portion granting or denying injunctive relief and may not 

address the other portions.” Easton v. Brasch, 277 S.W.3d 558, 561 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (citing Eichelberger v. Hayton, 814 S.W.2d 179, 

182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied)). Thus, if part of the 

interlocutory order modified the earlier temporary injunction, that part would be 

appealable under Section 51.014; any remaining parts would not. 

The Department contends that Section 51.014 of the Civil Practice and 

Remedies Code grants us jurisdiction to review the partial-summary-judgment

order. According to the Department, the order modified the temporary injunction 

by commanding the Department to turn over the Trucks because the temporary 

injunction had provided that the Trucks would remain in the Department’s

possession. Because of this “modification,” the Department concludes, we have 

jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. We disagree.

The temporary injunction ordered the Department to turn over certain 

vehicles to District 48, but it did not order the Department to turn over the Trucks. 

Nor did it order the Department to keep and maintain the Trucks. Other than 

prohibiting the Department from damaging, removing, or disabling the Trucks, the 

temporary injunction order did not address what was to be done with them. Stated 

differently, the temporary injunction was a negative prohibition that forbade the 
6

Department from causing harm to the Trucks; the partial summary judgment was a 

positive order that required the Department to transfer the Trucks because it did not 

own them. The temporary injunction preserved the status quo; the partial summary 

judgment granted affirmative relief.

Because the temporary injunction did not affirmatively grant the Department 

ownership of the Trucks or a right to possession of the Trucks, the temporary 

injunction was not modified by the part of the partial-summary-judgment order 

commanding the Department to turn over the Trucks within five days. Thus, we 

do not have jurisdiction under Section 51.014.1 Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Conclusion

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions are 

denied.

Harvey Brown

Justice

 

1 We further note that while the Department relies on Section 51.014 for 

jurisdiction, it is not limiting itself to seeking review of a modification of a 

temporary injunction. Instead, the Department is asking us to review the partial 

summary judgment on the merits and to reverse the trial court’s conclusion that 

District 48 owns the Trucks. But that is beyond our limited interlocutory review 

authority. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. Code § 51.014(4); see Easton v. Brasch, 277 

S.W.3d 558, 561 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (citing 

Eichelberger v. Hayton, 814 S.W.2d 179, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

1991, writ denied)). We do not have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. 
7

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Brown.