Opinion
No. 05-06-01385-CV
Opinion issued July 24, 2007.
On Appeal from the 336th Judicial District Court Grayson County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 03-0617.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, BRIDGES, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this accelerated interlocutory appeal, appellants appeal a judgment of contempt and a first amended order of temporary injunction granted in favor of the City of Sherman. In three issues, appellants contend that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) allowing their counsel to withdraw prior to the hearing on the motion for contempt and for amended temporary injunction and (2) denying their motion to continue that hearing. We conclude we do not have jurisdiction to review the judgment of contempt. We also conclude the amended temporary injunction is void because it does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. The facts of this case, as well as its procedural history, pleadings, and evidence are known to the parties and we do not recount them here. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4.
The Judgment of Contempt
Appellants seek review of the contempt order by direct appeal. However, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to review a contempt order on direct appeal. Tex. Animal Health Comm'n v. Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. 1983); Tracy v. Tracy, 219 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.). As a result, we do not have jurisdiction to review the contempt order.
The Amended Temporary Injunction
Rule 683 requires that "[e]very order granting a temporary injunction shall include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate relief sought." Tex. R. Civ. P. 683. The first amended order of temporary injunction does not include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits as required by Rule 683. Id.; see also EOG Res., Inc. v. Gutierrez, 75 S.W.3d 50, 52 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, no pet.) (reason for requiring injunction order to include trial date is to prevent temporary injunction from effectively becoming permanent without trial). The requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed. InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam); Qwest Commc'ns. Corp. v. AT T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam). When a temporary injunction order does not meet the mandatory requirements of Rule 683, it must be declared void and dissolved, regardless of whether the defect was raised or briefed on appeal. InterFirst, 715 S.W.2d at 641 (temporary injunction that does not set cause for trial on merits is void and must be dissolved); Bay Fin. Sav. Bank, FSB v. Brown, 142 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (although error not raised on appeal, temporary injunction void because it did not include order setting cause for trial on merits); EOG Res., 75 S.W.3d at 53 (same); Greathouse Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Tropical Invs., Inc., 718 S.W.2d 821, 821 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ) (same); Ty Equity Group, Inc. v. Cmty. Crossing, Ltd., No. 05-02-00591-CV, 2002 WL 31357002, at *1 (Tex.App.-Dallas Oct. 21, 2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (same).
Because the trial court's order granting the amended temporary injunction does not include the mandatory order setting the cause for trial on the merits, we conclude the trial court's amended temporary injunction is void. Consequently, we need not reach the issues raised by appellant. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
We do not have jurisdiction to review the issues regarding the judgment of contempt and dismiss the part of the appeal regarding that judgment. We reverse and dissolve the trial court's amended temporary injunction. We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.