i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 51 7- CV J ay M ARESH , Be nefic iary , and J.R . Schaub, Truste e,

Ap pe lla nts
v . Gilbert A. G AM EZ , Sr
. , an d D e n is e L
. G a me z, Appellee s Fr om the 37th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-CI -00106 Honora ble L arr y Noll, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Dece mber 30, 2009 REVERSED; TEMPOR ARY I NJ UNCTI ON DI SSOL VED Appellants Jay

Mare sh and J.R . Schaub, T r u s te e , bring this int erloc utory appea l from the trial court’s or der g rantinga tempora ry injunction e njoining them from proce eding with the eviction of appellee s, Gilbert A. Gamez, Sr. and Denise L . Gamez, from their homestead r eal pr operty . See T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 51 .0 14 (a )( 4) (V e rn on 20 08 ). With ou t a dd

re ssi ngthe me ri ts04
- 09
- 00 51 7- CV

- 2- of the injunctive re lief, we hold th e orde r g rantingthe tempora ry injunction does not meet the specific ity

require ments of Texas Rule of Civil P roce dure 683. T EX . R. C IV . P
. 6 8 3
. A c c o r d i n g l y,
we r ever se the trial c ourt’s orde r, dissolve the tempora ry injunction, and rema

nd the case to the trial court for further proce eding s.

F ACT UAL AND P R OC EDU R A L B ACKG ROUND On J une 20, 2008, J ay Mare sh sold a house and lot located at 3427 Westmark, San Antonio, Texas t o Gilbert and D enise Ga mez (collectively

“Gamez”) in exchang e for a $25,000 down pay ment and execution of a re al estate lien note in the orig inal principal amount of $180,000 and a deed of trust as security
. Gamez m ade the house pay ments for J uly and August, but stopped making the pa y me nts in S e pte mbe r, c la imi ngmul tip le de fe c ts i n th e ho us e . O n Nov e mbe r 4, 200 8, Mare sh sent Game z a wr i t t en n o tice of de fault and intent to ac cele rate the maturity of the note. O n Dec ember

8, 2008, Schaub as truste e under the dee d o f t ru s t , s ent Game z written notice of
acc eler ation of the note a

nd of a non-judicial foreclosure sale scheduled for J anuar y 6, 2009. The day befor e the sc heduled f

orec losure sale , Gamez filed suit in district court and obtained a te mporary restra ining or der e njoining Schaub a nd Mare sh from proc eeding w it h th e f o r e c lo s ure. The temporar

y restra ining or der sig ned by the cour t on J anuar

y 5, 2009, states that Mare sh and Schaub are restra ined from “pr ocee ding w ith or causingthe non-judicial forec l o sure of ” the r eal pr operty

at issue. A hear ing on w hether

the tempora

ry restra ining order should be ex tended and a temporary injunction should be issued was se t for January 16, 2009. On J anuar y 12, 2009, befor e expiration of the temporar y restra ining order , Schaub re -posted the re al prope rty

for a fore closure sa le on Fe bruar y 3, 2009. Schaub sold the prope rty at fore closure to M are shon

F e br ua ry 3, 20 09
. The ne xt day , F e br ua ry 4, Ma re shde liv e re d a

wr itt e n d e mand

to04
- 09
- 00 51 7- CV

1 ... T h e or der g r an t i n g t h e t empor ar y i n j u n ct i on s et t h e mat t er f or t r i al on D ec embe r 7, 2009.

- 3- va c a te and

surr e nd e r p os se ssi on

of the pr op e rt

y . Wh e n G a me z fa ile d to va c a te the pr op e rt y , M are sh filed a f orcible e ntry

and deta iner suit in the justice court. On Ma rch 26, 2009, the justice court
e nte re d ju dg me nt a

wa rd ingpo sse ssi on

of the pr op e rt

y to M are sh . G a me z appeal ed to the c ounty court at law, and the a

ppeal r emains pending
. On J u n e 11, 2009, Gamez filed a second amende d petition in district c ourt seeking a te mpo ra ry inj un c tio n to pr oh ibi t e vic tio n and to se t a sid e the fo re c los ur e sa le , a nd a lle g ingc la ims for wr ong ful fore closure, D TP A vi olations, fraud a nd unjust enrichment. A he aringon the application for

a tempora

ry injunction was held on June 18, 2009, and the c ourt orally g rante d the injunction enjoining the e viction of Game z. On August 6, 2009, the c ourt signe d a wr itten order g ranting the tempora

ry injunction and enjoining Ma resh a nd Schaub fr om proce ed i n g with the
e v i c t i o no f

G a m e z f r o m t h e r e a l p r o p e rt y. 1 Mare sh and Schaub have appea led the issuance of the temporar y injunction. A N A L Y SIS Mare sh and Schaub a

rg ue t h at the district court a bused its discretion in g rantingthe temporar y injunction because : (1) Ga mez did not prove all the eleme nts nece ssary for issuanc e of the tempora

ry injunction; (2) the written orde r issuing the i n j u n ct i o n does not comply with the mandatory

require ments of Tex as Rule of Civil Procedur e 683; and (3) the cour t erre d in refusing to consider the va lidity

of the January

5 , 2 0 0 9 temporar

y restra ining or der dur ing the injunction hear ing. G amez did not file an appe llees’ br ief. The purpose of a temporary injunction is t o prese rve the status quo of the litigation’s subject matter pe nding a

trial on the merits. W

all ing v . M e tc alf e , 863 S.W .2d 56, 57 (Tex. 1993). An04
- 09
- 00 51 7- CV

- 4- a pp lic ant s e e kin g a

te mpo ra ry inj un c tio n mus t ple a d and pr ov e thr e e sp e c if ic e le me nts : “ (1 ) a

c a us e
o f a c ti o n a g a in s t th e d e f e n d an t; ( 2 ) a p r o b a

b le r ig h t to th e r e li e f s o u g h t; an d ( 3) a pr obable, imminent, and irrepa

rable injury

in the interim.” Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co. , 84 S.W .3d 198, 204 (T e x. 20 02 ); City of San Antonio v. Vake y , 123 S.W .3d 497, 499 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet . ). W e review a

n order g rantinga tempora

ry injunction for an a

buse of discr etion without addre ssing the merits of t he underly ing c ase. Bu tna ru , 8 4 S. W.3 d at 20 4; W alling, 863 S.W .2d at 58. Rule 6 8 3 of the Te x as Rules of Civil P roce dure r equire s that ever y order g rantingan injunction “shall set forth the r easons f or its issuance; shall be spe cific in ter ms; [ and] shall describe in rea sonable detail and not by ref ere nce to the complaint or ot her document, the act or ac ts sought to be re strained . . . .” T EX . R. C IV . P. 6 83 . The re qu ir e me nts of Rul e 68 3 a

re mand a tor

y and mus t be strictly followed. Qwest Communications Corp. v. AT& T Corp. , 24 S.W .3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000) (p e r c ur iam) ; InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v
. Paz Const. Co. , 715 S.W .2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam) (whe n injunction or der does not a dhere to Rule 683 require ments, it is subject to being decla red void a nd dissolved). To comply with Rule 683, an orde r g rantinga tempora ry injunction must specify

the re asons why

the injunction is warra

nted, including “the r easons why injury will be
s u f f e r e d ” if th e in

ju n c ti o n is n o t g r an te d
. State v. Cook United, I nc. , 4 6 4 S. W. 2 d

1 0 5 , 1 0 6 ( T e x. 19 71 ); Indep. Capital Mgmt., L.L.C . v. Collins , 261 S.W .3d 792, 795 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pe t.) ; Au toN

ati on , In c . v . H

atf ie ld , 186 S.W .3d 576, 581 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2005,
no pet.) . T he re a so ns state d in the or de r f

or g ra nti ngthe inj un c tio n mu st b e sp e c if ic and le g a lly sufficie nt, and must not be mere c onclusory statements. Colli ns , 2 6 1 S
. W
. 3 d at 7 9 5 (c i t i n g Charter Med. Corp. v. M

iller , 5 47 S.W. 2d

77 , 7 8 ( Tex
. Ci v. App.—D a lla s 1 97 7, no wr it) ); Univ.04
- 09
- 00 51 7- CV

- 5- Interscholastic League v. Torres , 616 S.W .2d 355, 358 (Tex. Civ. App.—S an Antonio 1981, no writ). I f the c ourt’s orde r g rantinga tempora ry i n j u n ction does not comply on its face with the specific ity

require ments of Rule 683, it constitutes an abuse of discretion and is void. Qw est , 24 S.W. 3d a t 33 7; Col lin s, 261 S.W .3d at 795; Torres , 616 S.W .2d at 358. Here, t he inj un c tio n o rd e r f

a ils to s pe c if

y the pr ob a

ble inj ur y tha t w ou ld b e su ff

e re d if injunctive relief

was n ot gr anted. The order mere ly rec ites the conc lusory

statement that if the inj un c tio n is no t g ra

nte d “ Pla int if

fs wi ll suf fe r i mme diate and

ir re pa ra ble inj ur y , lo ss o r d a ma g e wi ll result to Plaintiff be fore notice can be serve d and hea ring had ther eon.” T he orde r does not spec ify the fa cts the tri al court re lied on, and fa ils to i dentify the spec ific injury

that will occur if the injunction is not g rante d. See Collins , 261 S.W .3d at 795. Mere ly stating that “irre para ble injury will result” if injunctive re lief is not gr anted doe s not c omply with the specific ity

require ments of Rule 683. See id. at 795-796 (injunction order simply setting out e lements nec essar y for r elief, a

nd fa ili ngto ide nti fy

the inj ur y fr om d e nia l of

the inj un c tio n, wa s c on c lus or y and vo id) ; Ha tfi e ld , 186 S.W. 3d a t 58 1 ( me re re c ita l of “ ir re pa ra ble ha rm ” do e s n ot mee t Ru le 68 3’ s sp e c if ic ity
re qu ir e me nts ); Torres , 616 S.W .2d at 358 (same)
. The temporar y injunction or der does not confor m t o the re quirements of Rule 683, a nd there fore the trial cour t abused its discretion in enter ing the order and the o rder

is void. Qw est , 2 4 S. W.3 d at 33 7; Torres , 6 16 S.W. 2d a t 35 8; see Rio Grand Ex plo ra tio n, L.L. C. v . A nju Pr od uc tio n, L.L. C. , N o . 0 4
- 0 8
- 0 0 4 9 5
- CV , 2 0 0 9 WL 6 1 8 6 1 6 , a t *2 ( T e x. App.—San Antonio Mar. 11, 2009, no pe t.) (mem. op.). B e c a us e we c on c lud e the or de r g ra nti ng the te mpo ra

ry inj un c tio n f

a ils to m e e t th e sp e c if

ic ity require ments of Rule 683, and is thus void , we nee d not addre ss the other a ppellate issues ra ised by Mar esh and

Sc ha ub . A c c or din g ly , th e tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r g ra nti ngthe te mpo ra

ry inj un c tio n is04
- 09
- 00 51 7- CV

- 6- reve rsed, the injunction is dissolve d , an d t h e ca use is rema

nded to the trial c ourt for f urther pr oc e e din g s.
Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice