Michael J. DeLitta And DeLCom Properties, LLC v. Nancy Schaefer
03-15-00085-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 16, 2015Background
- This appeal challenges a temporary injunction entered October 29, 2013, by agreement of the parties in a dispute over control of several Axiom entities.
- The agreed injunction set a trial date of April 7, 2014, contained no stated reasons for issuance, and provided no mechanism to extend or renew the injunction beyond that date.
- On October 22, 2014, appellants (DelCom and DeLitta) moved to dissolve and to declare the injunction void under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683.
- The trial court denied that motion on January 16, 2015; appellants filed an accelerated appeal.
- Appellants argue the injunction is void for two independent Rule 683 defects: (1) it fails to state legally sufficient reasons for issuance, and (2) the trial date passed so the injunction expired.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the temporary injunction is void for failing to state reasons for issuance under Rule 683 | Schaefer relies on the agreed nature of the order and does not contend the order contains the required specific legal reasons | Appellants argue Rule 683 requires specific, legally sufficient reasons and the injunction contains none, making it void | Court of appeals brief argues the injunction is void for failing to state legally sufficient reasons (appellate relief sought) |
| Whether the temporary injunction expired because the trial date passed and no extension was ordered | Schaefer contends the parties agreed to the injunction; no effective argument that absence of reasons or expiration saves it | Appellants argue Rule 683 requires a trial date and that the injunction expired when April 7, 2014 passed with no renewal, so it is void | Court of appeals brief argues the injunction is void due to expiration (appellate relief sought) |
| Whether an "agreed" injunction can evade Rule 683 requirements | Schaefer implicitly asserts agreement should preclude voidness | Appellants maintain Rule 683 is mandatory and agreement does not waive its requirements | Brief asserts settled law rejects special exceptions for agreed injunctions; compliance is mandatory |
| Relief: whether trial court erred in refusing to dissolve/declare void the injunction | Schaefer opposes dissolution | Appellants seek reversal and dissolution/vacatur of the October 29, 2013 injunction | Brief asks appellate court to reverse the denial and declare/vacate the injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cook United, Inc., 464 S.W.2d 105 (Tex. 1971) (explains Rule 683 requires the court to state reasons why injury will occur absent interlocutory relief)
- Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam) (characterizes Rule 683’s procedural requirements as mandatory and subjects noncompliant injunctions to being declared void)
- InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam) (declares Rule 683 requirements mandatory; vacated injunction that failed to comply)
- Gray Wireline Serv., Inc. v. Cavanna, 374 S.W.3d 464 (Tex. App.—Waco 2011) (holds a void order has no force and voidness cannot be waived)
- Indep. Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Collins, 261 S.W.3d 792 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (explains trial court abuses discretion when issuing an injunction that does not comply with Rule 683)
- Bankler v. Vale, 75 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001) (discusses requirement to define irreparable injury and provide specific reasons under Rule 683)