Court Opinion

ID: 9378631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-11 07:09:51.235013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:29.313151
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed March 9, 2023

                                     In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                  ___________

                              No. 11-22-00362-CV
                                  ___________

  FARAH NICOLE MATOTT, KRISTI RIDER, JAMES LANCE
         IRVIN, AND TRACY FOOTE, Appellants
                                        V.
                     CALEB LEE MATOTT, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 318th District Court
                           Midland County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. FM67371

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      This interlocutory appeal stems from an order granting Caleb Lee Matott’s
request for a temporary injunction against Farah Nicole Matott, Kristi Rider, James
Lance Irvin, and Tracy Foote (Appellants). See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.
§ 51.014(a)(4) (West Supp. 2022). Caleb Lee Matott (Appellee) recently filed a
motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction due to mootness. Appellants,
who opposed Appellee’s request for temporary injunction, also oppose Appellee’s
motion to dismiss this appeal. Because we agree with Appellee that this appeal is
now moot, we dismiss the appeal.
      On December 21, 2022, in what appears to be a rather contentious divorce
proceeding between the Matotts, the trial court signed an order granting Appellee’s
request for a temporary injunction. In the order, the trial court temporarily enjoined
Appellants from conveying or encumbering certain real property, among other
things. The injunction was to remain in effect until the trial court entered a final
judgment.
      However, on February 17, 2023, the trial court entered an order dissolving the
temporary injunction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 29.5. In its February 17 order, the trial
court granted Appellee’s motion to dissolve the temporary injunction and
specifically ruled: “IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the Temporary Injunction signed and entered on December 21, 2022
in the above-entitled and numbered cause is hereby DISSOLVED.” The temporary
injunction is, therefore, no longer operative.
      “Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies. . . . A
case becomes moot if at any stage there ceases to be an actual controversy between
the parties.” Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999)
(citations omitted); see also Parr v. Stockwell, 322 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Tex. 1959).
When an appeal becomes moot, the appellate court must dismiss it for want of
jurisdiction. Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012).
      When a temporary injunction becomes inoperative, as it did here when the
trial court dissolved it, the issue of its validity is moot. See Jones, 1 S.W.3d at 86.
An appellate court decision regarding the validity of a temporary injunction under
such circumstances would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion. Id.

                                           2
      Appellants suggest that this appeal is not moot because a justiciable
controversy still exists with respect to whether the temporary injunction was
wrongfully granted and whether Appellants were damaged. While those issues may
remain a justiciable controversy between the parties in the trial court, those issues
are not before us in this interlocutory appeal. See, e.g., Adobe Oilfield Servs., Ltd. v.
PNC Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, No. 11-09-00078-CV, 2009 WL 3068391, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Eastland Sept. 24, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal and declining
to address the alleged collateral consequences of a temporary injunction—including
claims for wrongful injunction and recovery on the temporary injunction bond—
because the temporary injunction became moot while the interlocutory appeal was
pending).
      Having considered the orders of the trial court and the arguments of the parties
to this appeal, we conclude that any opinion regarding the validity of the now
dissolved and inoperative temporary injunction would merely be advisory. We
decline to issue an impermissible advisory opinion.
      Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                                      PER CURIAM

March 9, 2023
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                           3