Camp Mystic, Inc. and Richard G. Eastland, Natural Fountains Properties, Inc. v. S. Stacy Eastland, Nancy Eastland Leaton, 399 S.W.3d 266

Camp Mystic, Inc. and Natural Fountain Properties (NFP) sue Stacy Eastland and Nancy Leaton over governance, rent, and fiduciary duties related to a 1998 lease and post-reorganization arrangements.
A 2011 Kerr County jury ruled for Dick Eastland, Tweety Eastland, and Camp Mystic on related fiduciary and oppression claims; later a trial court granted a new trial on those claims and realigned parties, transferring the case to McCulloch County.
An amended petition re-pleaded shareholder oppression and fiduciary-duty claims, and a 2008/2011 lease sequence culminated in a Third Amendment (2011–2013) that appellees argued harmed NFP and minority shareholders.
Appellees sought equitable relief including rescission of the Third Amendment, a temporary injunction, and appointment of a receiver/agent to negotiate rents; they also sought to preempt or shape recreational access via a Recreational Use Addendum that included arbitration.
The trial court enjoined the last 11 months of the Third Amendment, enjoined the arbitration provision for the first year, and appointed an external “Agent” to negotiate and potentially authorize leases or sales, prompting this appeal by NFP and CMI.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the temporary injunction was proper	Appellees claim imminent, irreparable harm from reduced rent, restricted access, and potential harm to equitable relief.	Appellants contend there was no irreparable harm or imminent injury warranting an injunction.	Temporary injunction reversed; no irreparable harm shown.
Whether appointment of an Agent for NFP was proper	Appellees justify an independent agent to protect minority interests.	No basis to appoint an agent; no consent or clear need shown; potential breach of independent action.	Appointment of Agent reversed; insufficient evidence to justify appointment.
Whether arbitration clause should be enforced despite the injunction	Arbitration provision should proceed as contemplated by Recreational Use Addendum.	The court abused by enjoining arbitration; issues require separate disposition.	Arbitration issue remanded for further proceedings; injunction reversal tied to this matter.

Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. 1993) (temporary injunction prerequisites and status quo guidance)
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (injunction standards focusing on probable harm and remedy in interim relief)
Transp. Co. of Tex. v. Robertson Transps., Inc., 261 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1953) (requirement that injunctions state reasons for interim relief)
Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc., 161 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (evidence admissibility for prior trial testimony at subsequent proceedings)
Escamilla v. Estate of Escamilla, 921 S.W.2d 723 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996) (judicial notice limits; cannot rely on prior testimony without proper authentication)