Reported / Citable
Background
Pecos Housing Finance Corporation, a housing finance corporation organized under the Texas Housing Finance Corporations Act, acquired or sought to acquire properties outside its sponsoring municipality, including in Arlington, Fort Worth, and Haltom City. The cities alleged that Pecos’s efforts to obtain tax exemptions for those properties violated the Act and deprived them of tax revenue.
The cities sued Pecos, certain Pecos board members, and appraisal officials for declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court denied Pecos’s jurisdictional pleas and temporarily barred the appellants from acquiring properties in the cities and from seeking, obtaining, or receiving tax exemptions on properties there.
The Court’s Holding
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction. Housing finance corporations are not protected by governmental immunity because the Act expressly provides that an HFC is not a municipality, county, or other political subdivision. The cities also did not have to exhaust appraisal-review-board remedies before suing: their claims included prospective relief and alleged violations of the HFC Act that were outside the board’s jurisdiction.
But the court held that all three temporary-injunction orders were void under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. Arlington’s and Fort Worth’s orders gave no reasons for issuance or explanation of irreparable injury. Haltom City’s order identified lost tax revenue and a generalized impact on city services, but did not state facts explaining how that loss would irreparably harm particular city services. The court reversed, dissolved the injunctions, and remanded.
Key Takeaways
- An HFC does not receive governmental immunity merely because it performs a statutory public-purpose function.
- Taxing units may pursue claims alleging violations of the HFC Act without first using appraisal-review-board procedures where those procedures do not cover the claims.
- A temporary-injunction order must itself state specific reasons and facts establishing irreparable harm; conclusory recitals make it void.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Texas courts’ strict enforcement of Rule 683. Parties seeking emergency injunctive relief must ensure that the signed order—not just the pleadings, evidence, or oral ruling—sets out a concrete factual basis for irreparable harm.
It also allows municipalities to litigate alleged unlawful out-of-jurisdiction HFC property acquisitions and tax-exemption efforts without treating HFCs as immune political subdivisions.