Maria Fernanda Quintanilla v. Susana De La Rosa
13-20-00575-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 22, 2021Background
- Reymundo De La Rosa kept his ex-wife Maria Fernanda Quintanilla as beneficiary on a BBVA Compass account; he died on November 4, 2020, and BBVA delivered the account funds to Quintanilla.
- Susana De La Rosa (Reymundo’s daughter by another relationship) sued Quintanilla and BBVA claiming the beneficiary designation was an error and sought injunctive relief to prevent withdrawals.
- The trial court issued a temporary restraining order on November 19, 2020, held a hearing (scheduled Nov. 30, 2020), and entered a temporary injunction on December 21, 2020, freezing the BBVA account and enjoining Quintanilla from withdrawing funds.
- The injunction’s text recited the hearing and ordered the freeze/ban on withdrawals but did not state reasons for issuance or set a trial date.
- Quintanilla appealed. The court of appeals held the injunction failed to comply with Tex. R. Civ. P. 683 (no reasons, no trial date), declared the injunction void, dissolved it, reversed the trial-court order, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (De La Rosa) | Defendant's Argument (Quintanilla) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the temporary injunction complies with Tex. R. Civ. P. 683 by stating reasons for issuance | The record, pleadings, evidence, and hearing support entry of the injunction | Rule 683 requires the order itself to state the reasons with reasonable detail; the injunction contains no such explanation | The injunction does not state reasons as required and therefore fails Rule 683 |
| Whether the injunction must contain a trial setting date | The hearing and proceedings suffice (implied) | Rule 683 requires a trial setting date in the order; omission is fatal | The injunction contains no trial date; failure to set one renders the injunction noncompliant |
| Remedy for noncompliance with Rule 683 | Injunction should remain in effect if irreparable harm shown | An injunction that does not comply with Rule 683 is void and subject to dissolution | Court reversed, dissolved the temporary injunction, and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard for injunction review)
- Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2000) (Rule 683’s requirements are mandatory; noncompliant injunction subject to being declared void)
- Sargeant v. Al Saleh, 512 S.W.3d 399 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2016, no pet.) (discussing abuse of discretion and Rule 683 compliance)
- Good Shepherd Hosp., Inc. v. Select Specialty Hosp.–Longview, Inc., 563 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2018, no pet.) (holding that failure to state reasons renders a temporary injunction void)