Andy Sanchez v. John H. Miller, Jr. Co. Inc.
04-15-00360-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 25, 2015Background
- Appellant Andy Sanchez seeks dissolution of a temporary injunction entered July 7, 2014 in a Kerr County case (trial court cause no. 14467B).
- The July 7, 2014 Temporary Injunction–Amended contained a paragraph stating the injunction would expire at the time set for a permanent-injunction trial on August 7, 2014, unless the court ordered otherwise.
- No trial occurred on August 7, 2014, and no order extending the injunction was signed at that time; appellant argues the injunction therefore expired by its own terms.
- On May 20, 2015 the trial court signed an order stating the July 7, 2014 injunction “remains in full force and effect” until final trial or further order.
- Appellant contends (1) there was no injunction in effect between August 7, 2014 and May 20, 2015, (2) the May 20, 2015 order did not require the appellee to post a bond as required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 684, and (3) the May 20 order therefore was void and could not properly “relate back” to the expired injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellee/Miller) | Defendant's Argument (Sanchez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the July 7, 2014 temporary injunction remained effective after Aug. 7, 2014 | The court intended the injunction to continue; the May 20, 2015 order confirms continuation | The July 7 order expressly expired Aug. 7, 2014; no extension was signed, so it expired by its own terms | Appellant contends the injunction expired on Aug. 7, 2014; appellate ruling not included in this brief record |
| Whether the May 20, 2015 order could validly reinstate or continue the injunction without requiring a bond | The May 20 order effectuates continuation of the injunction | The May 20 order failed to require a bond as Rule 684 mandates, rendering it void | Appellant contends the order is void for lack of bond; appellate ruling not included in this brief record |
| Whether a later order can "relate back" to an injunction that expired by its own terms | The court can confirm continuity; a later order can effectively reinstate or validate prior injunction | There is no authority showing a later order can relate back to an injunction that already expired; cited cases do not involve an injunction that expired on its own terms | Appellant contends "relation back" is unavailable here; appellate ruling not included in this brief record |
| Whether there was competent evidence at the May 6, 2015 hearing to support the injunction | The appellee relied on prior proceedings and the court’s discretionary findings | The appellee presented no evidence at the hearing; an injunction cannot be upheld without evidence | Appellant contends absence of evidence defeats the May 20 order; appellate ruling not included in this brief record |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Jordan, 142 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. 2004) (an injunction lacking required bond may be void)
- Ex parte Lesher, 651 S.W.2d 734 (Tex. 1983) (temporary injunction must comply with statutory/bond requirements)
- Del Valle Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Lopez, 845 S.W.2d 808 (Tex. 1992) (issuing and appealing injunctive orders; appealability issues)
- Ludewig v. Houston Pipeline Co., 737 S.W.2d 15 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1987) (amendments to injunctions where original injunction had not expired)
- Letson v. Barnes, 979 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998) (injunction cannot be sustained without evidentiary support)