A trial court is not authorized to render judgment against a party before the party has had the opportunity to offer evidence on his or her behalf and has rested. See, e.g., Stearns v. Martens, 476 S.W.3d 541, 546 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (directed verdict); In re Estate of Luthen, No. 13-12-00638-CV, 2014 WL 4795038, at *9 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Sept. 25, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.); Wedgeworth v. Kirskey, 985 S.W.2d 115, 116 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied) ("[Directing a verdict] is reversible error if done before the plaintiff has presented all his evidence."); Nassar v. Hughes, 882 S.W.2d 36, 38 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (directed verdict); Jordan, 653 S.W.2d at 358; Tobola v. State, 538 S.W.2d 868, 870 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1976, no writ); Gibson v. Shaver, 434 S.W.2d 462, 464 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1968, no writ). The rendition of a judgment before the parties rested and closed evidence on the property division issues appears inadvertent, but we agree with Martha that she is entitled to complete the contested evidentiary trial on the property issues.
Therefore, temporary injunctions cannot be issued except after notice to the opposing party and the taking of evidence from both parties. Gibson v. Shaver, 434 S.W.2d 462 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1968, no writ); TEX.R.CIV.P. 681. Further, the applicant must show a probable right and probable injury, and he must give bond.
A trial court is not authorized to render a judgment against a party to a lawsuit before that party has had the opportunity to present evidence on disputed issues of fact. Turcotte, 499 S.W.2d at 723; see Jordan v. Jordan, 653 S.W.2d 356, 358 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1983, no writ); Gibson v. Shaver, 434 S.W.2d 462, 464 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1968, no writ); Oertel v. Gulf States Abrasive Mfg., Inc., 429 S.W.2d 623, 624 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1968, no writ). However, a party's right to due process "does not mean that a case may never be disposed of before a trial."
The court held that a trial court is not authorized to enter a temporary injunction order against a party before that party has had an opportunity to present its defenses and has rested its case. City of Austin, 528 S.W.2d at 640; see also Gibson v. Shaver, 434 S.W.2d 462, 464 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1968, no writ). We therefore sustain the eleventh point of error.
No temporary injunction can be issued without notice to the adverse party and an opportunity to be heard. City of Austin v. Texas Public Employees Ass'n, 528 S.W.2d 637, 640 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1975, no writ); Gibson v. Shaver, 434 S.W.2d 462, 464 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1968, no writ). The trial court is not authorized to enter an order of temporary injunction against a party before that party has had an opportunity to present its defenses and has rested its case.
If, at the close of applicant's presentation, the judge, in the proper exercise of his discretion, has not been persuaded that the applicant is entitled to the relief requested, he is entitled to deny the application. This is the reverse of the situation presented in Gibson v. Shaver, 434 S.W.2d 462 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1968, no writ); and Ortel v. Gulf State Abrasive Manufacturing, Inc., 429 S.W.2d 623 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1968, no writ). These cases hold that the right of a defendant to notice in a temporary injunction proceeding also includes the right for such defendant to be heard at the hearing.
I further disagree with the majority that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ending the hearing arbitrarily and refusing to hear his side of the case. The record reflects that the trial court had made up its mind and had announced so to the parties even before appellee's phase of the case was completed, hardly indicative of impartiality and probably a violation of TEX.R.CIV.P. 262, 265, Producer's Construction Co. v. Muegge, 669 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. 1984); Jordan v. Jordan, 653 S.W.2d 356 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1983, no writ); Tobola v. State, 538 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [14th Dist.], 1976, no writ); Turcotte v. Trevino, 499 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corpus Christi 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Oertel v. Gulf States Abrasive Manufacturing, Inc., 429 S.W.2d 623 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1968, no writ); Gibson v. Shaver, 434 S.W.2d 462 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1968, no writ). The act of the trial court in denying appellant a jury trial and in additionally refusing him the right to present his case reflects the same unabashed attitude exhibited recently in Jordan v. Jordan, supra.
A trial court is not authorized to render judgment against a defendant before the defendant has had the opportunity to offer evidence in his or her behalf and has rested. Tobola v. State, 538 S.W.2d 868, 870 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1976, no writ); Gibson v. Shaver, 434 S.W.2d 462, 464 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1968, no writ); Oertel v. Gulf States Abrasive Manufacturing, Inc., 429 S.W.2d 623, 624 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1968, no writ). Appellee's arguments are without merit.
Harden and O'Donnell's first cross-point of error complains of the fact that they were not afforded an opportunity to present a "case-in-chief" at the hearing on the temporary injunction. The notice requirements of Rule 681 T.R.C.P. require that an adverse party in a temporary injunction setting have a right to be heard. Gibson v. Shaver, 434 S.W.2d 462 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1968, no writ); City of Austin v. Texas Public Employees Assoc., 528 S.W.2d 637 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1975, no writ). Such opportunity to be heard must amount to more than the mere right to cross-examine the other party's witnesses.
The determination of the issues before a trial court should be made only after the parties have had an opportunity to offer testimony or other evidence. Gibson v. Shaver, 434 S.W.2d 462, 464 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1968, no writ). In Anderson v. Hidalgo County Water Improvements, 251 S.W.2d 761 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1952, writ ref'd n. r. e.), the trial court refused to allow either party the right to introduce evidence and only considered the pleadings, affidavits and arguments of counsel.