Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kris and Sara Zurita sued their neighbors Brenda Johnson, Tamara Rhodes, and Braylee Busby for claims including negligence, trespass, vandalism, and conversion. The Zuritas alleged that the appellants allowed animals onto their property, damaged property and livestock, directed bright lights toward their home, and engaged in other harassment. The appellants asserted counterclaims for trespass, conversion, and harassment.
The trial court issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the appellants from entering the Zuritas’ property, allowing animals to roam onto it, firing firearms toward the Zuritas’ home, goats, or children, obstructing a shared county road, threatening to run over people or animals, and acting or speaking with an intent to harass or offend. The appellants pursued an interlocutory appeal, arguing that the injunction was void under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 and was overly broad and unsupported by the evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals held that the temporary injunction was void because it did not include an order setting the case for trial on the merits, as Rule 683 expressly requires. The court explained that Rule 683’s requirements are mandatory and must be strictly followed.
The Zuritas argued that the omitted trial date was an inadvertent error that could be corrected on remand. Relying on its precedent, however, the court concluded that a noncompliant injunction is void rather than merely voidable and therefore could not simply be remanded for the addition of a trial date. The court vacated the September 12, 2025 injunction and did not reach the appellants’ remaining challenge to its breadth or evidentiary support.
Key Takeaways
- A Texas temporary-injunction order must set the underlying case for trial on the merits.
- Failure to satisfy that requirement of Rule 683 renders the injunction void, even if the omission was inadvertent.
- Because the procedural defect required vacatur, the appellate court did not decide whether the injunction was overly broad or unsupported by the evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Texas courts strictly enforce the formal requirements governing temporary injunctions. Parties obtaining injunctive relief must ensure that the written order itself includes every element required by Rule 683, including a setting for trial on the ultimate relief sought.
A missing trial setting is not treated as a minor drafting problem that an appellate court may send back for correction. It invalidates the injunction, regardless of whether the record might otherwise support interim relief.