Liberty Federal Savings Bank v. 2908 Lovers Lane Enterprises, LLC, Saeed Mahboubi, and Jafar Mahboubi
05-16-00389-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 20, 2016Background
- 2908 Lovers Lane Enterprises, LLC (owner), and Saeed and Jafar Mahboubi (members/occupants) obtained construction loans from Liberty Federal Savings Bank secured by a deed of trust on 2908 Lovers Lane.
- The Mahboubis began living in the completed house in late 2009 and have resided there since without paying rent to the LLC.
- In January 2016 the Bank sent a Notice of Maturity and Foreclosure on the loans; appellees sued the Bank (breach, fraud, wrongful foreclosure) and sought a temporary injunction to stop foreclosure.
- At the temporary-injunction hearing the trial court found appellees would suffer immediate and irreparable harm, had no adequate remedy at law, and entered an order enjoining foreclosure.
- The Bank appealed, arguing (1) the injunction order violates Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683, (2) appellees failed to prove irreparable harm, and (3) equitable principles bar relief.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and dissolved the injunction, finding the order void for failure to comply with Rule 683, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the temporary injunction order complies with Tex. R. Civ. P. 683 | The order states foreclosure would cause irreparable harm because it affects the plaintiffs' home and thus an adequate legal remedy is lacking | The order does not state specific reasons or identify the particular irreparable harm as required by Rule 683 | The order fails Rule 683's mandatory specificity requirement and is therefore void; reversible error for trial court |
| Whether appellees proved irreparable harm | Real property is unique; foreclosure of their home causes irreparable injury without adequate remedy at law | Bank contends appellees did not prove irreparable harm | Court did not rule on the merits because it reversed on Rule 683 noncompliance (no reach on this issue) |
| Whether equity principles bar injunctive relief | Injunctive relief justified to prevent foreclosure of residence | Bank argues equitable principles preclude relief (e.g., plaintiffs' use of property, ownership by entity) | Court did not address on merits due to Rule 683 disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (elements and standards for temporary injunctions and irreparable injury)
- El Tacaso, Inc. v. Jireh Star, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 740 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (Rule 683 requires specific, nonconclusory reasons in injunction orders)
- Indep. Capital Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Collins, 261 S.W.3d 792 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (failure to comply with Rule 683 is abuse of discretion and voids injunction)
- Schulz v. Schulz, 478 S.W.2d 239 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1972) (purpose of Rule 683: inform enjoined party of prohibited acts and reasons)