Court Opinion

ID: 9369562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 08:11:21.884675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:15.423267
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                                 EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                      EL PASO, TEXAS

 PEBBLE HILLS PLAZA, LTD.,                          §               No. 08-22-00128-CV

                                 Appellant,         §                  Appeal from the

 v.                                                 §             41st Judicial District Court

 ASLM, LTD.,                                        §             of El Paso County, Texas

                                 Appellee.          §               (TC# 2022DCV1639)

                                             OPINION

       This is an interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction. Appellant, Pebble Hills Plaza,

Ltd. (PHP) raises four issues on appeal. We need only address the first issue because it is

dispositive. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. In its first issue, PHP contends the temporary injunction must be

dissolved because it does not state the reasons for issuance or set a date for trial on the merits. We

vacate the trial court’s order, dissolve the temporary injunction, and remand the cause to the trial

court for further proceedings.

                                                Background

       PHP and ASLM Ltd. (ASLM) were once related entities—the history and facts of their

relationship are unnecessary to our disposition, so we discuss them only briefly. Of importance

here is that the parties dispute the ownership of a parcel of real property located in El Paso County

(the Property). From 2003–2016, the original third-party owner of the Property, executed a series
of liens, loans, and notes which she secured through the Property. In 2015, PHP and ASLM, along

with other related entities, entered into a set of Separation Agreements to allocate assets between

the related entities. As part of the Separation Agreements, the parties also executed a “Mutual

Release,” releasing individuals and entities from various potential claims.

       In 2018, the original third party defaulted on the loans and, acting under the belief it had

the superior interest, ASLM and the third party executed a general warranty deed conveying the

Property to ASLM in lieu of foreclosure. In 2022, acting under the belief it had a senior interest,

PHP attempted to foreclose on the Property. ASLM filed suit below asserting superior title to the

Property and seeking a temporary injunction preventing PHP from selling the Property.

       The court granted the temporary injunction, and the following is the order in its entirety:

              On June 22, 2022, [Appellee’s] application for temporary injunction came
       on to be heard. After review of the evidence, pleadings and argument of counsel,
       the court finds injunctions should be issued.

             THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that [Appellant] is prohibited from
       conducting a foreclosure sale of [the Property], until further order of this Court.

               IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that [Appellee] is prohibited from selling
       [the Property], until further order of this Court.

               IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Temporary Injunction is effective
       immediately without issuance of a writ of injunction, that issuance and service of a
       writ of injunction are waived, that the bonds currently in place are adequate; and
       that no additional bond is required.

             This order may be appealed under the provisions of Texas Rule of Appellate
       Procedure 28.1 for appeal of interlocutory orders.

This interlocutory appeal followed.
                                               Discussion

       In its first issue, PHP contends that the injunction fails to comply with the mandatory

requirements of Rule 683 and is void. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 683. Temporary injunctions “preserve

the status quo of the litigation’s subject matter pending a trial on the merits.” Butnaru v. Ford

                                                 2
Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002) (op. on reh’g). The trial court has discretion to grant

or deny temporary injunctive relief, and a reviewing court will uphold its ruling absent a clear

abuse of discretion. Hoist Liftruck Mfg., Inc. v. Carruth–Doggett, Inc., 485 S.W.3d 120, 122

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.). Although the trial court has discretion to grant

temporary injunctive relief, once granted the order must strictly comply with Rule 683. Id. (citing

Helix Energy Sols. Grp., Inc. v. Howard, 452 S.W.3d 40, 44 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2014, no pet.).

       Rule 683 provides that every order granting a temporary injunction shall set forth the

reasons for its issuance in specific terms and set the cause for trial on the merits. Id. These two

requirements are mandatory and must be strictly followed. See InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v.

Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1986). Temporary injunctions that fail to comply with

the requirements of Rule 683 are “subject to being declared void and dissolved.” Id. “This rule

operates to invalidate an injunction even when the complaining party fails to bring the error to the

trial court’s attention.” Fasken v. Darby, 901 S.W.2d 591, 593 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, no writ).

       The injunction here does not comply with Rule 683’s mandates because it does not identify

any harm ASLM would have suffered had it not been issued, and it does not set a date for trial on

the merits. The language of the order prohibits both parties from selling or conducting a foreclosure

sale of the Property. It includes no specific reasons why ASLM would have suffered irreparable

harm, nor does it contain even conclusory statements regarding harm. See e.g., Kotz v. Imperial

Capital Bank, 319 S.W.3d 54, 56–57 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, no pet.) (finding conclusory

statements or mere recitals of harm are insufficient to satisfy Rule 683). Accordingly, we conclude

the trial court abused its discretion by issuing an order that does not comply with Rule 683’s

mandates.

                                                 3
                                        CONCLUSION

       We vacate the order, dissolve the temporary injunction, and remand this cause to the trial

court for further proceedings.

                                             SANDEE B. MARION, Chief Justice (Ret.)

February 7, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Soto, J., and Marion, C.J. (Ret.)
Marion, C.J. (Ret.) (Sitting by Assignment)

                                                4