Devon Energy Production Company, LP v. Joanne McCarver and Lane Garrett Custom Homes, Inc.
10-15-00002-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 6, 2015Background
- McCarver owns property where Devon holds a mineral lease and accesses via a gate; McCarver was developing a gated residential community and asked Devon to move access.
- Unknown persons stole McCarver’s infrared cameras/DVR in Sept. 2012 (replaced at cost $1,700) and an AC unit from a home under construction in Oct. 2013 (replaced at cost $3,100).
- McCarver alleged the thefts were facilitated by Devon leaving its access gate open and sued Devon for breach of contract and negligence, seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting Devon from leaving gates open or unlocked.
- After a bench trial, the trial court granted the permanent injunction enjoining Devon as McCarver requested.
- Devon appealed, arguing (1) no underlying cause of action supported injunctive relief, (2) insufficient evidence to support injunction elements (particularly irreparable harm), (3) injunction scope too broad, and (4) trial-court procedural error regarding findings of fact.
- The Tenth Court of Appeals reversed the permanent-injunction judgment and rendered judgment that McCarver take nothing, holding McCarver failed to prove irreparable injury because alleged losses were remedied by monetary replacement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a permanent injunction was supported by an underlying cause of action | McCarver argued her contract/negligence claims and security harms justified injunction | Devon argued no statutory or equitable basis for an injunction absent proof of irreparable harm | Not decided on the merits (court reversed on irreparable-harm ground and did not reach remaining issues) |
| Whether evidence supported the elements for a permanent injunction (notably irreparable injury) | McCarver argued thefts and increased accessibility posed continuing, unquantifiable harm justifying injunction | Devon argued the stolen items were replaced for money, so damages were compensable and remedies at law were adequate | Held for Devon: McCarver failed to show irreparable injury; damages were compensable by replacement, so injunction was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the injunction’s scope was overly broad | McCarver sought a prophylactic order preventing Devon from ever leaving gates open/unlocked when accessing the property | Devon argued the injunction was vague/overbroad and exceeded any proven harm or duty | Not reached (court reversed injunction on irreparable-harm ground) |
| Whether appeal should be abated/remanded for findings of fact because trial court didn’t file findings before term end | McCarver would benefit from remand to supply or preserve findings supporting injunction | Devon argued procedural default and trial-court timing precluded abatement/remand | Not reached (court resolved on abuse-of-discretion/irreparable-harm basis) |
Key Cases Cited
- Noell v. City of Carrollton, 431 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (standards for reviewing trial court's grant of injunction)
- Webb v. Glenbrook Owners Ass'n, Inc., 298 S.W.3d 374 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (common-law elements for injunctive relief)
- Priest v. Tex. Animal Health Comm'n, 780 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989) (injunction prerequisites at common law)
- Sonwalkar v. St. Luke's Sugar Property P'ship, L.L.P., 394 S.W.3d 186 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (statutory injunctive standards versus common law)
- Butler v. Arrow Mirror & Glass, Inc., 51 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (statutory and equitable principles governing injunctions)
- Town of Palm Valley v. Johnson, 87 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. 2001) (statute does not eliminate equitable requirement to show irreparable harm)
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (definition of irreparable injury: inadequacy of monetary damages)
- Millwee-Jackson Joint Venture v. DART, 350 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (adequacy of remedies at law vs. equitable relief)
- Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (adequate remedy at law and injunction standards)