### NUM BER 13-08- 746- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
CHA RLES W. M A NN A ND ST EWA RT & M A NN , P.C ., A pp ellan ts,
v . ROS A A GUIR RE, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom Co un ty C ou rt at L aw N o. 4 of H ida lgo C ou nt y , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef o re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la This i s a n appea l from a de fault j udg ment ent er ed ag ain st Cha rl es W

. Ma n n and Ste w art & Mann , P

. C. (“ Mann ”) f or $40 0,0 00. 00 in da ma ges, $13 3,0 00. 00 in at torne y ’s fees, and appel lat e attor ney ’s fees. On appeal , M ann ar g ues that the t ri al cour t er re d by issuing an injunct ion over w hich it h ad no jurisdiction, that the injun ction was v oid be causeT h is C o u r t h a s b e e n n o tif ie d b y le tt e r o f th e d e a th o f R o s a A g u ir r e
. T h e r e f o r e , w e w ill a d j u d ic a te th is 1 appea l pur suant t o T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 7. 1.

A j ib a d e is n o t a p a r ty t o th is a p p e a l. 2 2 it di d not co mply w it h Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Pr ocedu re 683, thatthe damag es w er e ex ces si v e, and t hat t he tr ial co urt er re d i n fail ing to g ra nt his moti on for new tr ial

. W e r ev er se and
re mand. I. Background On O cto b e r 31, 2 007, appel lee , R osa Ag uir re , fil ed s uitag ain st Cal eb Aj iba de 1 2 seek ing damag es and inj unct iv e re li ef ag ain st him w it h r espec t t o pr oper ty sh e oc cupi ed in Edinb urg. Aguirre claimed that Ajibade , w ho a lleged tha t he was th e p rope rty ow ner, enter ed i nto a n or al ag re ement w it h her w her ein she agr eed to pay him $135.00 a month for th e p u rch a se of

the pr oper

ty , and thatAj iba de ag re ed to co nv ey the pr oper

ty to her
w hen t he pr oper

ty w as paid in f ull

. Ag uir re pleaded that alt houg h the ag re ement pr ov ide d that she coul d l iv e on the p ro per ty w hil e maki ng pay ments, Aj iba de s oug ht t o r emov e her from the pr oper

ty throug h a forci ble detainer acti on i n H ida lg o c ounty j ust ic e c our

t, and t hat Aj iba de’ s r epr esent ati ons to he r w er e fals e and caus ed her damag es. The tr ial co urt ent er ed a tempor ar y re str ain ing or der in Ag uir re ’s fav or on N ov ember 2, 20 07, rest ra in in g “any per son inc lud ing any j udg e of a J ust ic e C our t or any l aw enforc ement offici al

. . . from tak ing any ac ti on” to r e m o ve h e r from the pr oper ty

. On Nov ember

8, 2007, the c our

t ent er ed a tempor ar

y inju nct ion rest ra ini ng any perso n from tak ing any

ac ti on to r emov e Ag uir re from t he Edi nbur g pr oper ty

. T here af ter, Ajiba de f iled a motion to dissolve the injun ction, urgi ng that th e justice court ha d jurisdiction ov er f orcible entry and det aine r action s and com plainin g tha t the case3

shoul d hav e been br oug ht as an a ppeal from a jud g ment of Oc tober 2 9, 20 07 g ra nti ng Aj iba de pos ses si on. Aj iba de filed hi s o ri g ina l answ er on N ov ember

30, 2007, ple adi ng the aff ir mati v e defense of the sta tute of f ra uds. Lat er , Aj iba de fil ed hi s fir st amended an sw er and c ounter cl aim, ag ain ur g ing the defense of the sta tu te of frauds

. He als o s oug ht damag es of $1,350.0 0 for unpai d r ent. On A pr il 18, 2008, Ag uir re fil ed her fir st amended pe ti ti on, for the firs t t ime addi ng Ma nn as a defendant. She all eg ed th at M ann, as Aj iba de’ s a g ent, sent w ri tten noti ce to Ag uir re thatsh e and her hus band w er e ev ic ted a nd th at t hey w er e to l e a ve the prop erty made the su bje ct of the s uitin v iol ati on of the tr ial court ’s rest ra ini ng order

. Ag uir re ur g ed tha t Mann’ s a c ti on s w er e i n c l ea r v i ol at i on o f t he t r i al c ou rt’ s i nj un c ti on o r de r a nd w ould subj ect M ann t o c ontempt of cour t, a fine, and attor ney ’s fees. The pl eadi ng s a ls o s oug ht
ex emplar

y damag es. M ann ans w er ed th e l aw sui t on behal f of hi s c li ent, but d id not a nsw er
as a par ty to the l aw sui t. The tr ial co urt g ra nted a defaultj udg ment i n fav or of Ag uir re and ag ain st Ma nn for $400,00 0.00 in damag es, att or ney ’s fees of $133, 000.00, and appel lat e attor ney ’s fees. The c our t t hen s ev er ed Agu irre ’s act ion ag ain st Ma nn from t he ac ti on ag ain st Ag iba de, mak ing the default ag ain st Man n a f inal jud g ment. Al thoug h M ann requeste d tha t the record of the de f ault jud gmen t hea ri n g b e prepa red by the court
re por ter , no re cor d is before us. Ma nn filed a moti on for new tr ial , w hic h w as deni ed by the tr ial co u rt. Si mil ar ly , w e hav e no re cor d before us of any hear ing on t he moti on for new tr ial

. II. A nal y sis Ma nn ur g es that the i nju nct ion upon w hic h the defa u lt j u d g ment w as based w as
v oid

. Rul e 683 re q uir es that “[ e]v er y or der g ra nti ng a t empor ar

y i nju nct ion sh all i ncl ude an4

or der s etti ng the caus e for tr ial on t he mer it s w it h r espec t t o the ul ti mate r eli ef soug ht.” T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 683. T he order of tem pora ry

injunctio n up on which the de f ault jud gmen t is ba s e d d o e s n o t i n c l u d e a n o r d e r s e t t i n g t h e c a u s e fo r t r i a l o n t h e me r i t s a s r e q u ir ed by Rul e 683. I d

. ; s e e a l

s o E O G R e s
. , I n c
. v
. G u t i e r r e z, 75 S .W .3d 5 0, 52 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Antoni o 2002, no p et.) ( re ason for r eq uir ing i nju nct ion or der to inc lud e tr ial date i s t o pr ev ent t empor ar

y i nju nct ion from effecti v ely bec oming per manent w it h out t ri al)

. The
re q uir ements of Rul e 683 ar e mandatory and must be str ic tl y

f oll ow ed. Qw est Comm c'ns. Cor p. v. AT & T

C or p., 24 S.W .3d 334, 337 (Tex . 2000) (p er cu ri am); Inter

Fi rs t Ba nk San Fel ipe , N.A. v. Paz

C onst r. C o., 715 S.W .2d 6 40, 6 41 ( Tex . 198 6) ( per cu ri am). W hen a tem pora ry

injunctio n orde r does no t me et the ma nda tory requireme nts of Rule 683 , it must be decl ar ed v oid and dis sol v ed, r eg ar dle ss of w hether the defect w as ra is ed or br iefed on appeal

. Inter

Fi rs t, 715 S.W .2d a t 641 (t empor ar y inj unct ion that does not set caus e for tr ial
on meri ts is v oid and must be di ss olv ed) ; Bay Fi n. S av. Bank

, F SB v . Br own, 142 S.W .3d 586 , 591 (Tex. App. –T exarkana 20 0 4 , n o pe t.) (althou gh error not raised on app eal, tem pora ry

injunctio n v oid be cause it did not include orde r settin g cause f or trial on m erits); EOG Res ., 75 S. W .3d a t 53 (s ame); Gr eathous e Ins. Agenc

y, Inc . v . T ro pic al Inv

s., Inc ., 718 S. W .2d 8 21, 8 21 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1986, no w ri t) ( same)

. A v oid or der has no forc e or

eff ect and confer s n o r ig ht; it i s a nul li ty

. See In r e Gar z a, 126 S. W .3d 2 68, 2 7 3 (T e x. Ap p .– Sa n An to n io 20 0 3 , o rig. pro ce e d in g) Her e, t he defaul t j udg ment g ra nted ag ain st Ma nn w as based on a n i nju nct ion or der that w as v oid

. Beca use the inj unct ion or der is v oid , the default jud g ment w hic h w as bas ed sol ely on Mann ’s alle g ed v iol ati on of that v oid i nju nct ion or der may not be s ust ain ed. See5

In r e Gar z a, 126 S. W .3d at 273 (s tati ng that a tr ial courtthat holds a par ty i n c ontempt for
v iol ati ons of a v oid or der abus es it s d is cr eti on) ; Ex par te F er nandez , 645 S. W .2d 6 36, 6 39 (Te x
. App .–E l Paso 198 3, orig

. proce edin g) (holdin g tha t beca use an und erly ing c h ild suppo rt or der

w as v o id , th e att or ney ’s fees bas ed upon the v oid or der must al so be decl ar ed v oid ); see als o In re Vaugh n, No

. 1 2 -0 9 -0 0 1 4 3 -C V , 2 0 0 9 W L 3 2 8 8 3 0 1 a t *4 (T e x. App.–Ty ler

Oc t. 14, 2 009, or ig . pr oceed ing ) (s tati ng thatbecause a tempor ar y i nju nct ion orde r is v oid, th e con tem pt jud gmen t bas e d o n i t is also void). W e susta in Mann’s f irst is sue. III. Conclusi on Ha vin g s u s t a in e d Ma n n ’s f ir s t is s u e b e c a u s e t h e o rd e r o f in ju n c t io n is vo id , we
re v er se the d efault jud g ment and r emand the cas e to the t ri al cour t for entr y of a j udg ment
cons is tent w it h thi s o pin ion

.

RO SE VELA J u s t i c e

Del iv er ed and filed the 28th day of Janua ry , 201 0.