State of Texas v. Cody Dale Lawler--Appeal from County Court of Lamar County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 6th District Court of Appeals » 2005 » State of Texas v. Cody Dale Lawler--Appeal from County Court of Lamar County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 06-05-00099-CR

Case Date: 10/31/2005

Plaintiff: Tsephanyah Hawkins and Courtroom Data Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Stenoscribe, Inc.

Defendant: Claudia Hutchison--Appeal from 42nd District Court of Callahan County

Preview:Tsephanyah Hawkins and Courtroom Data Solutions,
Inc. f/k/a Stenoscribe, Inc. v. Claudia Hutchison--
Appeal from 42nd District Court of Callahan County
/**/
11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Memorandum Opinion
Tsephanyah Hawkins and Courtroom Data
Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Stenoscribe, Inc.
Appellants
Vs. No. 11-04-00158-CV -- Appeal from Callahan County
Claudia Hutchison
Appellee
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction and appointing a receiver for
Stenoscribe, Inc. In their first point of error, appellants contend that the temporary injunction is void because the order
failed to set forth the reasons for its issuance and failed to include a specific date for a trial on the merits as required
by TEX.R.CIV.P. 683. In their second point of error, appellants contend that appellee has failed to execute and file the
bond ordered by the trial court in connection with the temporary injunction and the appointment of the receiver and
that, therefore, the prerequisites for the temporary injunction and the appointment of a receiver have not been met as
required by TEX.R.CIV.P. 684 & 695a. Because the part of the order granting the temporary injunction failed to
comply with Rule 683 and because there is nothing in the record to show that appellee filed a bond as required by
Rules 684 and 695a, the trial court s order granting the temporary injunction and appointing the receiver is dissolved.
The procedural requirements imposed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure are mandatory, and an order granting a
temporary injunction that does not comply with those requirements is subject to being declared void and dissolved.
Qwest Communications Corporation v. AT & T Corporation, 24 S.W.3d 334 (Tex.2000); InterFirst Bank San Felipe,
N.A. v. Paz Construction Company, 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex.1986); Bay Financial Savings Bank, FSB v. Brown,
142 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 2004, no pet n); Kaufmann v. Morales, 93 S.W.3d 650, 656 (Tex.App. -
Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet n); EOG Resources, Inc. v. Gutierrez, 75 S.W.3d 50, 52 (Tex.App. - San Antonio
2002, no pet n); Wyatt v. Cowley, 74 S.W.3d 576, 577 (Tex.App. - Corpus Christi 2002, dism d w.o.j.). Rule 683
requires that every order granting an injunction shall set forth the reasons for its issuance and include an order setting
the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate relief sought. See State v. Cook United, Inc., 464 S.W.2d
105, 106 (Tex.1971)(trial court s reasons for issuing the injunction must be specifically stated in the order); EOG
Resources, Inc. v. Gutierrez, supra (a trial date must be included in the injunction order). The trial court s order
granting the injunction failed to do either.
The bond provisions of Rule 684 are also mandatory. Bay Financial Savings Bank, FSB v. Brown, supra. In her brief,
appellee states that she planned to file the bond. However, the record before us does not reflect that a bond has been
filed.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/7949.html[8/20/2013 7:27:45 PM]

Finally, there is nothing in the record to show that appellee filed a bond in connection with the appointment of the
receiver. Rule 695a provides:
No receiver shall be appointed with authority to take charge of property until the party applying therefor has filed with
the clerk of the court a good and sufficient bond, to be approved by such clerk, payable to the defendant in the amount
fixed by the court.
Compliance with Rule 695a is a prerequisite to the appointment of a receiver. Continental Homes Company v.
Hilltown Property Owners Association Inc., 529 S.W.2d 293 (Tex.Civ.App. - Fort Worth 1975, no writ). Non-
compliance with Rule 695a requires reversal of the order appointing the receiver. Rubin v. Gilmore, 561 S.W.2d 231,
234 (Tex.Civ.App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1977, no writ).
The May 20, 2004, order of the trial court granting the temporary injunction and appointing a receiver is dissolved.
PER CURIAM
July 14, 2005
Not designated for publication. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(a).
Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and
Wright, J., and McCall, J.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/7949.html[8/20/2013 7:27:45 PM]

Download 7949.pdf