InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C-5393,C-5393 |
| Citation | 715 S.W.2d 640 |
| Parties | INTERFIRST BANK SAN FELIPE, N.A. Petitioner, v. PAZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Jerry L. Schutza, Alexrod, Smith, Komiss & Kirshbaum, Houston, for petitioner.
W. Briscoe Swan and Leon J. Hursch, Houston, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction enjoining InterFirst Bank San Felipe from foreclosing a deed of trust lien securing payment of a promissory note. On appeal, InterFirst complained that the trial court's injunction order is void because it does not include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits. Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to grant the temporary injunction, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court of appeals concluded the trial court's failure to include an order setting the matter for trial on the merits did not mandate a dissolution of the injunction.
Rule 683 provides in pertinent part as follows: Every order granting a temporary injunction shall include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate relief sought.
The requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed. When a temporary injunction order does not adhere to the requirements of Rule 683 the injunction order is subject to being declared void and dissolved. E.g., Northcutt v. Warren, 326 S.W.2d 10, 10 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.); 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). Because the court of appeals' decision conflicts with the requirements of Rule 683, we grant the application for writ of error. Pursuant to Rule 133(b), Tex.R.App.P., without hearing oral argument, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, declare the temporary injunction void and order that it be dissolved.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Operation Rescue-National v. Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas, Inc.
...TEX.R. CIV. P. 683. 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). Findings of fact are not required to challenge the validity of an injunctive order that fails to state a reason ......
-
Sargeant v. Saleh, NUMBERS 13–15–00327–CV
...declared void and dissolved. See Qwest Commc'ns Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex.2000) ; InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex.1986) ; Yardeni v. Torres, 418 S.W.3d 914, 918 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2013, no pet.) An interlocutory order grantin......
-
Tarr v. Lantana Sw. Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc.
...Tex. R. Civ. P. 683. Those requirements 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). An injunction order that does not adhere to those requirements is unenforceable. Id. The purpose of Rule 68......
-
Helix Energy Solutions Grp., Inc. v. Howard, 14–14–00442–CV.
...An order that fails to comply with Rule 683 “is subject to being declared void and dissolved.” InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex.1986) (per curiam). Helix correctly points out that the trial court's order does none of these things. Howard does not......
-
Wrongful Discharge
...of appeals in Interfirst Bank San Felipe v. Paz Construction Co., 741 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.], rev’d on other grounds, 715 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1986), focused on the defensive nature of promissory estoppel. The case involved an oral promise to extend a real estate loan. The c......
-
Wrongful Discharge
...appeals in Interfirst Bank San Felipe v. Paz Construction Co. , 741 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.], rev’d on other grounds , 715 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1986), focused on the defensive nature of promissory estoppel. The case involved an oral promise to extend a real estate loan. The co......
-
Table of cases
...2009), §18:8.H.1 Interfirst Bank San Felipe v. Paz Constr. Co. , 741 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.], rev’d on other grounds , 715 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1986), §3:9.C.1 International Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Boeing Co. , 833 F.2d 165 (9th Cir. 1987), §24:5.C.2 Intern......
-
Table of cases
...2009), §18:8.H.1 Interfirst Bank San Felipe v. Paz Constr. Co. , 741 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.], rev’d on other grounds , 715 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1986), §3:9.C.1 International Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Boeing Co. , 833 F.2d 165 (9th Cir. 1987), §24:5.C.2 Intern......