In Re Corcoran
343 S.W.3d 268
Tex. App.2011Background
- Relators G. Christian and Peggy Corcoran seek a writ of mandamus to nullify an August 3, 2009 Agreed Mutual Temporary Injunction order issued byJudge Shearn Smith in Harris County 125th District Court.
- Relators also seek to overturn a October 14, 2009 sanctions order entered by Judge Kyle Carter based on the void injunction.
- Relators contend the injunction order was void for lack of a trial setting, as required by Tex.R. Civ. P. 683, which mandates a trial setting in every temporary injunction order.
- The trial court held Relators in contempt for violating the void injunction, which Relators argue is an abuse of discretion because the order was void.
- The court agrees the injunction was void for failure to include a trial setting and thus the contempt and sanctions based on that order are void.
- The court conditionally grants mandamus and directs vacatur of both the August 3, 2009 injunction and the October 14, 2009 sanctions order; for void orders, no sanctions or fees may stand, and monies paid under the void order must be refunded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does absence of trial setting void the injunction? | Corcorans argue the injunction is void due to no trial setting. | Respondent contends the injunction preserves the status quo despite the missing setting. | Yes, injunction void; mandamus to vacate required. |
| Is the contempt order valid if based on a void injunction? | Corcorans argue contempt order rests on void order and should be void. | Respondent argues contempt was proper for violation of injunction. | Contempt void; sanctions vacated. |
| Should sanctions and attorney fees be awarded based on a void order? | Corcorans seek denial of sanctions/fees resulting from void order. | Respondent relies on sanctions arising from alleged violations. | Sanctions/fees not permitted; refund required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaufmann v. Morales, 93 S.W.3d 650 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (mandatory trial setting in injunctions; void if missing)
- In re Garza, 126 S.W.3d 268 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003) (void orders affect subsequent relief)
- Ex parte Shaffer, 649 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. 1983) (contempt standards when based on void orders)
- Ex parte Sealy, 870 S.W.2d 663 (Tex.App.-Hous. [1st Dist.] 1994) (void orders cannot support relief or sanctions)
- Keene Corp. v. Gardner, 837 S.W.2d 224 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992) (void orders undermine sanctions/fees decisions)