### NUM BER 13-06- 0039 6-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

RIC A RD O J. GA RC IA , A pp ellan t,

v . M IGUE L LON GOR IA , A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 2 75t h Dist rict C ou rt of H ida lgo C ou nt y , T exas .


## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON
Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez This i s a tempor ar

y i nju nct ion ca se. See T EX

. C IV

. P R AC

. & R EM

. C OD E A NN

. § 51.014( a) (4 ) (V er non Su pp. 2007) (a ll ow ing for an int er loc utor y appeal from a r uli ng on a tempor ar

y i nju nct ion ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2 8.1 ( sta ti ng that su ch appeal s ar e ac cel er ated)

. By tw o i ss ues, appel lan t, Ri car do J . G ar ci a, as ks this C our t t o dec lar e a t empor ar

y i nju nct ionA p p e l l e e h a s n o t fi l e d a b rie f i n th i s m a tte r.. 1
Al t hough t he d ocum ent f i l ed was t i t l ed " Appl i cat i on f or R est r ai ni ng O r der , " i t s subst ance was t hat of 2 a r e q u e s t f o r a te m p o ra ry i n ju n c ti o n , a n d w e w i l l tre a t i t a s s u c h

. S ee S t ate B ar of T ex

. v. H ea rd , 603 S. W

. 2d 8 2 9 , 8 3 3 ( T e x . 1 9 8 0 ) (o rig . p ro c e e d i n g ); see a l so T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 71 ( expl ai ni ng h ow t o ha ndl e t he m i snom er of a pl eadi ng) , 680 ( set t i ng o ut t he r ul e f or a t em por ar y r est r ai ni ng o r der ) , 681 ( expl ai ni ng f or m and scope of an i njun c t i on ). 2 orde r enjoining him f rom e x ecut ing a judgmen t against ap pellee , Migu e l Longoria, void becau se the inj unct ion w as not suppo rt ed by ev ide nce and bec ause it fail s t o c omply w it h

ru les 683 and 684 of t he Tex as Rul es of Ci v il Pr ocedu re

. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 683, 684. 1
W e r ev er se the o rd er , di ss olv e the tempor ar y i nju nct ion , and r emand. In J une 2006, appell ee soug ht a tempor ar y inju nct ion

. O n J une 15, 2006, the tr ial

2

cour t enj oin ed appe ll ant fr om tak ing pos ses si on of appel lee 's "homes t e a d " a n d fro m s e ll ing

o r fr o m t a k i n g a n y

a c t i o n t o se l l a p p e l l e e ' s " p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y l e v i e d u p o n b y

t h e s h e r i ff
pur suant to a w ri t of ex ecut ion i ss ued i n thi s mat ter ." The or der re asone d that if thes e ac ts

w er e not r est ra ine d, L o ng or ia w oul d "s uff er i rr epar abl e i nju ry

bec ause [he w oul d]

w ro ng fully

l ose ow ner shi p of hi s h omeste ad." The or der di d not se t t he cas e for a tr ial on the mer it s. The or der

di d not fix

the amount o f the bond. T exas Rule of

Civ il Procedu re 683 state s tha t "[e ]very order gr ant ing a temp orary inj unct ion sh all i ncl ude an or der se tti ng the caus e f or

tri al on the merit s . . . ." T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 6 8 3

. T h e p ro ce d u ra l re qui re m e n ts o f ru le 6 8 3 are m a n d a to ry, a n d an ord e r gra n ti n g a tempor ar

y i nju nct ion that does not meet t hem i s s u b je ct t o b ein g dec lar ed v oid and dis sol v ed. Qw est C om m c'n Corp. v. A T & T Co rp ., 24 S. W .3d 3 34, 3 37 ( Tex . 200 0) ( per

cu ria m ) (ci ti n g Inter

Fi rs t Bank San Fel

ipe , N. A. v. Paz Con str . C o. , 715 S.W .2d 6 40, 6 41 (Te x . 198 6) (per curiam) (explaining th at rule 683 's requirem ent s a re m and ato ry a nd a re to be st ric tl y con st ru e d )). In ad d i t i o n , r u l e 68 4 pro vide s t h a t in th e ord e r gra n ti n g aB e c a u s e o f o u r d i s p o s i ti o n o f a p p e l l a n t' s s e c o n d i s s u e , w e n e e d n o t a d d re s s h i s fi rs t i s s u e

. See T EX

. 3 R. A PP

. P. 47. 1. 3 tempo r a r

y i n j u n c t i o n , " t h e c o u r t s h a l l fi x t h e a mo u n t o f s e c u r i t y t o b e g i v e n b y the appl ic ant." T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 684; see Ex par te J or dan , 787 S.W .2d 3 67, 3 68 ( Tex . 199 0) (p er curi a m) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t a n o r d e r fo r t e mp o r a r

y i n j u n c t i o n w a s v o i d w h e r e n o b ond

w as re q uir ed)

. Beca use the o rd er di d not se t t he c ause for tr ial on t he mer it s a nd di d not fix the amount o f secur it y r eq uir ed, w e c o n clu d e that i t i s v oid

. See City of Sherm an v. Ei ra s , 157 S.W .3d 931 , 931 (Tex. App. –Dallas 20 05, orig . procee ding) (ordering trial court to en ter orde r disso lv ing te mp orary injunct ion w here o rder did no t com ply w ith rule 68 3). Appel lan t' s s econd i ss ue i s s ust ain ed. 3 Hav ing conc lud ed that the tempor ar y inj unct ion or der is v oid , w e re vers e th e tri al

cour t' s o rd er , di ss olv e the tempor ar y i nju nct ion , and r emand th e c ause for furt her
pr oceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

.
NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 3 1st day

of Jul y , 200 8.