Austin Independent School District v. H. C. Beck Partners, Ltd.--Appeal from 353rd District Court of Travis County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 3rd District Court of Appeals » 2009 » Austin Independent School District v. H. C. Beck Partners, Ltd.--Appeal from 353rd District Court of Travis County

State: Texas

Court: Criminal Court of Appeals

Docket No: 03-07-00228-CV

Case Date: 03/13/2009

Plaintiff: PROPERTY OWNERS WHO CARE-SOUTH PADRE ISLAND, MICHAEL BOSWELL, ALAN DAY, SEA TURTLE, INC. AND FRIENDS

Defendant: LAGUNA MADRE ENHANCEMENT GROUP, L.P. AND COUNTY OF CAMERON, TEXAS--Appeal from 404th District Court

Preview:JA-JAE Properties, Inc.; and Stephen Marquart,
Individually and as Agent of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mario A. Guillen--
Appeal from 229th Judicial District Court of Starr
County
/**/
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-04-00589-CV
JA-JAE PROPERTIES, INC., Wells Fargo Bank Texas, N.A., and
Stephen F. Marquart, Individually and as Agent of Wells Fargo Bank Texas, N.A.,
Appellants
v.
Mario A. GUILLEN,
Appellee
From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas
Trial Court No. DC-03-472
Honorable Alex W. Gabert, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/17876.html[8/20/2013 7:45:21 PM]

Delivered and Filed: January 26, 2005
ORDER VACATED; TEMPORARY INJUNCTION DISSOLVED
This is an accelerated appeal from the trial court s order granting a temporary injunction in favor of appellee Mario
Guillen. In their second issue, appellants argue the order granting the temporary injunction is void because it does not
state the reasons relief was granted and does not require Guillen to file a separate bond. We agree.
Rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires an order granting a temporary injunction to set forth the
reasons for its issuance. Tex. R. Civ. P. 683. The Texas Supreme Court has construed Rule 683 to require the trial
court to give the reasons why injury will be suffered if the interlocutory relief is not ordered. State v. Cook United,
Inc., 464 S.W.2d 105, 106 (Tex. 1971). An order, such as the one in this case, that merely recites that [t]he Plaintiff
has further demonstrated he will be irreparable [sic] harmed unless the defendants are immediately restrained, fails to
comply with Rule 683 and is void. See InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Const. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex.
1986) (holding that [t]he requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed. When a temporary
injunction order does not adhere to the requirements of Rule 683 the injunction order is subject to being declared void
and dissolved ); Int l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union 479 v. Becon Constr. Co., 104 S.W.3d 239, 244 (Tex. App.
Beaumont 2003, no pet.) (holding that injunction is void if it does not identify the probable injury and articulate why
the injury is irreparable and the legal remedy inadequate); Fasken v. Darby, 901 S.W.2d 591, 593 (Tex. App. El Paso
1995, no writ) (holding that [a]n injunction that fails to identify the harm that will be suffered if it does not issue must
be declared void and dissolved ); University Interscholastic League v. Torres, 616 S.W.2d 355, 358 (Tex. Civ. App.
San Antonio 1981, no writ) (holding that an injunction that merely recites no adequate remedy at law and irreparable
harm does not comply with Rule 683).
Rule 684 requires the trial court to fix the amount of security to be given by the applicant [i]n the order granting any ...
temporary injunction. Tex. R. Civ. P. 684. This requirement is mandatory; accordingly, an order granting a temporary
injunction that does not set a bond is void. Qwest Communications Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2000)
(per curiam); In re Garza, 126 S.W.3d 268, 273 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]). The
trial court s order granting the injunction does not set the amount of security Guillen is to give; indeed, it does not even
require Guillen to post a separate bond at all. The order is therefore void.
Accordingly, we vacate the trial court s August 11, 2004, order granting the temporary injunction and dissolve the
temporary injunction. No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 49.4.
PER CURIAM
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/17876.html[8/20/2013 7:45:21 PM]

Download 17876.pdf