West I-10 Volunteer Fire Department v. Harris County Emergency Services District No. 48
507 S.W.3d 356
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Harris County Emergency Services District No. 48 (District 48) contracted with West I-10 Volunteer Fire Department (the Department) for decades; District 48 funded equipment and the Department provided services.
- In 2014 District 48 terminated the contract and claimed ownership of vehicles and equipment purchased with District 48 funds; the Department disputed ownership and refused to turn over property.
- The trial court issued a 2015 temporary injunction listing vehicles: those titled to District 48 were ordered turned over; a third list identified vehicles (the Rescue, the Quint, and the Pumper—"the Trucks") for which title/ownership was unresolved and were not ordered turned over.
- The temporary injunction barred either party from damaging, removing, or disabling vehicles awarded to the other party, but did not award the Trucks to the Department or otherwise grant affirmative possession rights.
- In 2016 District 48 moved for partial summary judgment on ownership of the three Trucks; the trial court granted summary judgment finding District 48 owned them and ordered the Department to turn them over within five days.
- The Department appealed the interlocutory partial-summary-judgment/order, arguing the order modified the earlier temporary injunction and was therefore appealable under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the interlocutory partial-summary-judgment/order is appealable under § 51.014(a)(4) because it modified the temporary injunction | Department: The partial-summary-judgment ordering turnover of the Trucks modified the temporary injunction (which the Department says left Trucks in its possession), so interlocutory appellate jurisdiction exists | District 48: The temporary injunction did not grant affirmative possession of the Trucks; it only prohibited harming/removing them, so the summary-judgment order did not modify the injunction | Court: No jurisdiction. The injunction was a negative preservation of status quo and did not grant possession; the summary-judgment order granted affirmative relief and did not modify the injunction, so § 51.014(a)(4) does not apply |
| Whether the court may review the merits of the partial summary judgment in this interlocutory appeal | Department: Seeks reversal of trial court’s ownership ruling on the merits | District 48: Merits review not authorized under § 51.014(a)(4) because the order is not an injunction modification | Court: Merits review is beyond the scope of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction here; appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Ahmed v. Shimi Ventures, L.P., 99 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (an order modifying a temporary injunction is appealable under § 51.014(a)(4))
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (final-judgment rule for appeals)
- Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2000) (statutory authorization required for interlocutory appeals)
- Easton v. Brasch, 277 S.W.3d 558 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (only injunctive portions of an order modified from a temporary injunction are reviewable on interlocutory appeal)
- Eichelberger v. Hayton, 814 S.W.2d 179 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991) (same principle limiting review to injunctive portions)