Reported / Citable
Background
Pecos Housing Finance Corporation is a nonprofit housing finance corporation organized under the Texas Housing Finance Corporations Act. It acquired properties outside its sponsoring municipality, including in Haltom City, and sought tax exemptions for those properties.
Haltom City sued Pecos and three board members in their official capacities, alleging that Pecos’s out-of-jurisdiction acquisitions and tax-exemption efforts violated the Act and deprived the city of tax revenue. The trial court denied Pecos’s plea to the jurisdiction and temporarily enjoined it from purchasing or approving purchases of Haltom City property and from seeking or receiving tax exemptions there.
The Court’s Holding
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction. Pecos was not entitled to governmental immunity because the Act expressly states that a housing finance corporation is not a municipality, county, or other political subdivision. The court also held that Haltom City was not required to exhaust appraisal-review-board remedies because its claims included prospective relief and alleged violations of the Housing Finance Corporations Act beyond the board’s jurisdiction.
But the court held that the temporary-injunction order was void under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. Although the order found probable recovery and irreparable injury, its explanation of irreparable harm rested on lost tax revenue and a conclusory assertion that city services would be affected. It did not identify facts showing how the revenue loss would irreparably harm specific city services.
Key Takeaways
- Housing finance corporations do not receive governmental immunity merely because they perform a public function.
- A taxing unit need not pursue appraisal-review-board procedures before seeking relief for alleged violations of the Housing Finance Corporations Act.
- A temporary-injunction order must state specific facts supporting irreparable harm; conclusory references to lost revenue and affected services are insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Rule 683’s strict drafting requirements. Even where a trial court has jurisdiction and a party may have a viable claim, a temporary injunction cannot stand unless the written order itself specifically explains the irreparable injury supporting interim relief.
The court reversed the injunction order, declared it void, dissolved the temporary injunction, and remanded for further proceedings.