Courtlandt Place Historical Foundation v. Doerner, 01-88-00952-CV
| Decision Date | 06 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-88-00952-CV,01-88-00952-CV |
| Citation | 768 S.W.2d 924 |
| Parties | . Karl F. DOERNER, Appellee. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Mark E. Lowes and James P. Moran, Bracewell & Patterson, Houston, for appellant.
Darlene Payne Smith and Daniel James Petroski, Baker, Brown, Sharman, & Parker, Houston, for appellee.
Before HUGHES, WARREN and DUNN, JJ.
This is an appeal from a temporary injunction ordering the appellant, Courtlandt Place Historical Foundation, to deactivate locks on automatic vehicular pedestrian gates at the ends of a private street and requiring that such gates remain open.
Courtlandt Place is a subdivision in Houston. Courtlandt Place resident Karl Doerner and Courtlandt Place Historical Foundation have sued each other over the Foundation's right to maintain and operate vehicle and pedestrian gates at either end of the one block long street running through the subdivision. The Foundation obtained an agreed temporary injunction against Doerner, restraining him from interfering with or damaging the east end vehicle and pedestrian gates. Doerner, claiming that the walls and gates violate deed restrictions and his easement rights to travel over Courtlandt Boulevard, filed a counterclaim and sought a temporary injunction against the Foundation.
The trial judge granted Doerner's request for a temporary injunction and ordered the Foundation to open the automatic vehicular gates at the east entrance and to deactivate the locks on the pedestrian gates at the east entrance. From this order, the Foundation appeals.
The Foundation's sole argument is that the temporary injunction is defective because it fails to comply with Tex.R.Civ.P. 683's requirement that a temporary injunction order set forth the reasons for its issuance in specific terms. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 683 provides: "Every order granting an injunction ... shall set forth the reasons for its issuance."
The disputed injunction in this case does not set forth any reasons for its issuance. It reads in part:
[T]he Court having considered the pleadings, heard the arguments of counsel, and considered the applicable law, is of the opinion that KARL F. DOERNER, JR., is entitled to the relief requested. It is therefore,
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Clerk of this Court is to issue a Temporary Injunction instructing Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, COURTLANDT PLACE HISTORICAL FOUNDATION, ET AL., to cause the automatic vehicular gates at the Bagby Street entrance to remain open and be latched open and not to be closed for any purpose pending a trial on the merits in this case. Furthermore, COURTLANDT PLACE HISTORICAL FOUNDATION is ORDERED to deactivate the locks on the pedestrian gates at the Bagby Street entrance so that they remain unlocked and unrestricted to ingress and egress.
A temporary injunction order is invalid if it does not state the reason why its issuance was necessary to prevent injury to the applicant. E.g., University Interscholastic League v. Torres, 616 S.W.2d 355, 357-58 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1981, no writ); Smith v. Hamby, 609 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1980, no writ); Kees v. Medical Directors, Inc., 583 S.W.2d 475 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Stoner v. Thompson, 553 S.W.2d 150 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
Doerner argues that the order is valid because he pled and introduced evidence to show that he had been falsely imprisoned and that the gates and walls constituted a continuing illegal interference with his rights of ingress and egress. Pleadings and testimony do not satisfy the requirement that the temporary injunction order must state the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Operation Rescue-National v. Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas, Inc.
...not required to challenge the validity of an injunctive order that fails to state a reason for its issuance. Courtlandt Place Historical Found. v. Doerner, 768 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ). While every order granting an injunction must set forth the reasons ......
-
Intern. Broth. of Elec v. Becdon Const.
...writ denied); Hopper v. Safeguard Bus. Sys., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1990, no writ); Courtlandt Place Historical Found. v. Doerner, 768 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ); Permian Chem. Co. v. State, 746 S.W.2d 873, 874 (Tex.App.-El Paso 198......
-
El Tacaso, Inc. v. Jireh Star, Inc.
...discretion by issuing temporary injunction order that does not comply with requirements of rule 683); see also Courtlandt Place Historical Found. v. Doerner, 768 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ) (injunction order that fails to comply with requirements of rule of ......
-
Austin Hous. Fin. Corp. v. Friends of Brykerwoods LLC
...AHFC did not file any formal objections to Brykerwoods's proposed order or a separate proposed order. 4. See Courtlandt Place Historical Found. v. Doerner, 768 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ); see also Mann v. Aguirre, No. 13-08-746-CV, 2010 WL 337161, at *2 (T......