in Re David A. Chaumette, 456 S.W.3d 299

Background

Black Sigma obtained a temporary injunction on Sept. 1, 2011, enjoining a scheduled substitute-trustee foreclosure sale; the signed order contained a conclusory statement that plaintiff would “suffer irreparable injury” but did not set out specific reasons required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 683.
The trial court later conducted additional hearings (Sept. 19 & 22, 2011) and signed an amended injunction on Oct. 7, 2011 that related back to the Sept. 1 order; an interlocutory appeal was filed and abated pending enforcement proceedings.
Black Sigma alleged that Chaumette, acting as substitute trustee, conducted a trustee’s sale on Sept. 6, 2011 and recorded a substitute trustee’s deed, prompting civil and criminal contempt proceedings in the trial court.
The trial court found Chaumette in civil contempt (Nov. 19, 2012) with a purge condition requiring execution of court‑approved documents; this court previously granted habeas relief as to that civil-contempt order because the purge condition was not sufficiently specific.
Separately, after a two-day hearing in Oct. 2013 the trial court found Chaumette guilty of criminal contempt (Oct. 11, 2013) and sentenced him to jail and fines; Chaumette sought habeas relief arguing the injunction was void for failing to comply with Rule 683.
The court of appeals concluded the Sept. 1, 2011 temporary injunction failed Rule 683’s specificity requirement, held the injunction void, and therefore vacated the criminal-contempt order and ordered Chaumette discharged.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Sept. 1, 2011 temporary injunction complied with Tex. R. Civ. P. 683	Black Sigma argued the injunction was valid and adequately supported by hearing and later proceedings	Chaumette argued the injunction’s order lacked the specific reasons required by Rule 683 and thus was void	The court held the Sept. 1 order failed Rule 683’s specificity requirement and is void
Whether a contempt order can stand when based on a void injunction	Black Sigma contended the contempt conviction remained valid despite alleged infirmities in the injunction	Chaumette argued one cannot be held in contempt for disobeying a void order	The court held a contempt order cannot be supported by a void injunction and vacated the criminal-contempt order

Key Cases Cited

In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (contempt is broad but must be exercised with caution)
Ex parte Shaffer, 649 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. 1983) (one may not be held in contempt for refusing to obey a void order)
Interfirst Bank San Felipe v. Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1986) (Rule 683 requirements are mandatory and must be strictly followed)
Qwest Commc’ns. Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2000) (injunctions not complying with Rule 683 are subject to being declared void)
Transp. Co. of Tex. v. Robertson Transps., Inc., 261 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1953) (Rule 683 requires the order to state reasons why interim relief is necessary)
El Tacaso, Inc. v. Jireh Star, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 740 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (recital of irreparable harm without specifics fails Rule 683)
Kotz v. Imperial Capital Bank, 319 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010) (conclusory statements of irreparable harm inadequate under Rule 683)
Ex parte Lesher, 651 S.W.2d 734 (Tex. 1983) (temporary restraining order void for failure to meet Rule 684 bond requirement cannot support contempt)
Ex parte Jordan, 787 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1990) (same principle as Lesher; procedural noncompliance can render injunctions void)