This is an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction enjoining InterFirst Bank San Felipe from foreclosing a deed of trust lien securing payment of a promissory note. On appeal, InterFirst complained that the trial court's injunction order is void because it does not include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits. Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to grant the temporary injunction, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court of appeals concluded the trial court's failure to include an order setting the matter for trial on the merits did not mandate a dissolution of the injunction.

Rule 683 provides in pertinent part as follows:

Every order granting a temporary injunction shall include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate relief sought.

The requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed. When a temporary injunction order does not adhere to the requirements of Rule 683 the injunction order is subject to being declared void and dissolved. E.g., Northcutt v. Warren, 326 S.W.2d 10, 10 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.); University Interscholastic League v. Torres, 616 S.W.2d 355, 357-58 (Tex.Civ.App — San Antonio 1981, no writ); Smith v. Hamby, 609 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1980, no writ). Because the court of appeals' decision conflicts with the requirements of Rule 683, we grant the application for writ of error. Pursuant to Rule 133(b), Tex.R.App.P., without hearing oral argument, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, declare the temporary injunction void and order that it be dissolved.

Summaries of

Interfirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Construction Co.

Supreme Court of Texas

Sep 10, 1986

715 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1986)

holding order violated Rule 683 because it did not set date for trial on merits

Summary of this case from Stewart Beach Condominium Homeowners Ass'n v. Gili N Prop Investments LLC

holding that a temporary injunction that does not set a cause for trial on the merits is void and must be dissolved

Summary of this case from Mcallen v. Mcal. Pol. Un.

holding that "[t]he requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed. When a temporary injunction order does not adhere to the requirements of Rule 683 the injunction order is subject to being declared void and dissolved"

Summary of this case from Ja-Jae Properties v. Guillen

holding that "requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed"

Summary of this case from Fasken v. Darby

finding temporary injunction void for not setting cause for trial on merits

Summary of this case from Conway v. Shelby

finding temporary injunction void for not setting cause for trial on merits

Summary of this case from Bay Financial Savings Bank, FSB v. Brown

reversing a temporary injunction order and declaring it void where order did not include a trial date setting the matter for trial on the merits

Summary of this case from Beeler v. Hanchey

stating that requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed

Summary of this case from Qwest Communications Corporation v. AT&T Corp.

In Interfirst Bank San Felipe v. Paz Construction Co., 715 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1986), this court held that the requirements of Tex.R.Civ.P. 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed, otherwise the temporary injunction order will be void.

Summary of this case from Hill v. Mobile Auto Trim Inc.

stating that requirements of rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed

Summary of this case from Hegar v. Zertuche Constr., LLC

declaring temporary injunction void for failure to comply with Rule 683

Summary of this case from Massenburg v. Lake Point Advisory Grp.

stating that requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed

Summary of this case from Jaycap Fin., Ltd. v. Neustaedter

stating that requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed

Summary of this case from Tatum v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.

stating that requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed

Summary of this case from City of Hous. v. Downstream Envtl., L.L.C.

stating that requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed

Summary of this case from Conlin v. Haun

setting out that temporary injunction that does not set cause for trial on merits is void and must be dissolved

Summary of this case from EMEX HOLDINGS v. NAIM

In Interfirst Bank, the supreme court declared a temporary injunction void and dissolved it because the temporary injunction did not include an order setting the matter for trial.

Summary of this case from Donaho v. Bennett

stating that requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed

Summary of this case from D.B. v. Top Des.

stating that requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed

Summary of this case from Bruns v. Top Design Inc.

explaining that rule 683's requirements are mandatory and are to be strictly construed

Summary of this case from Garcia v. Longoria

declaring temporary injunction order void for lack of trial setting

Summary of this case from Padgett v. LSKR

declaring order void and ordering it dissolved

Summary of this case from City of Laredo Commn v. Venegas

stating that requirements of rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed

Summary of this case from In re Garza

In Interfirst Bank, the trial court's temporary injunction order failed to include an order setting the matter for trial on the merits contrary to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683, which provides: "Every order granting a temporary injunction shall include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate relief sought."

Summary of this case from Wyatt v. Cowley

In Interfirst, as in this case, the trial court's temporary injunction order failed to include an order setting the matter for trial on the merits as required by TEX. R. CIV.

Summary of this case from Evans v. Woods

Interfirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Construction Co.

Summary

Opinion

Interfirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Construction Co.

Interfirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Construction Co.

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Interfirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Construction Co.

Summary

Opinion

Interfirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Construction Co.

Interfirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Construction Co.

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations