William Scott Flowers v. Susan Wallis, of the Estate of Aubrey J. Flowers

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 8, 2023
• Docket: 01-22-00785-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued June 8, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-22-00785-CV ——————————— WILLIAM SCOTT FLOWERS, Appellant V. SUSAN WALLIS, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF AUBREY J. FLOWERS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court Comal County, Texas 1 0F

Trial Court Case No. 2022PC0164

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from the trial court’s entry of a temporary injunction. The

temporary injunction is void because it did not set a date for trial on the merits.

1 Pursuant to its docket equalization authority, the Supreme Court of Texas transferred this appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas to this Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of cases). Accordingly, we dissolve the injunction, and we remand the case to the trial court

for further proceedings.

Background

Appellee Susan Wallis is the executrix of her brother’s estate. Some of the

decedent’s bequests of personal property were located at the home of decedent’s

son, William Scott Flowers, who allegedly claims ownership of the personal

property. Wallis sought an ex parte temporary restraining order and temporary

injunction, arguing: “There is a genuine dispute regarding the ownership of the

property described in the Last Will and Testament of Aubrey J. Flowers and is

therefore a question of fact to be determined after trial on the merits.” The trial

court granted a temporary injunction to prevent William Scott Flowers from

denying Wallis entry onto his property where some of the decedent’s personal

properly was allegedly stored. The temporary injunction did not set a date for trial

on the merits.

Analysis

William Scott Flowers appealed, raising three issues. He argued that the trial

court abused its discretion by granting the temporary injunction because there was

no pleading supporting a probable right to recovery, no evidence to support the

trial court’s finding, and the failure to set a trial date rendered the temporary

injunction void.

2 Whether to grant a temporary injunction that preserves the status quo for

trial is within the discretion of the trial court. See Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84

S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). The form of the injunction itself, however, must

strictly comply with Rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See Qwest

Commc’ns Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000); see InterFirst

Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1986)

(stating that requirements of rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed).

Rule 683 states: “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.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 683. This requirement is mandatory, and an order granting

a temporary injunction that fails to set the cause for trial on the merits “is subject to

being declared void and dissolved.” Qwest Commc’ns Corp., 24 S.W.3d at 337;

Hegar v. Zertuche Constr., LLC, No. 03-19-00238-CV, 2021 WL 219302, at *2

(Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 22, 2021, no pet.) (dissolving temporary injunction order

that did not set cause for trial on merits because it was void); State Bd. for

Educator Certification v. Montalvo, No. 03-12-00723-CV, 2013 WL 1405883, at

*2 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 3, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that temporary

injunction order that does not include trial setting is void).

3 The order granting a temporary injunction in this case did not set the cause

for trial on the merits, instead leaving blank the details in that section of the order. 2 1F

Because the order does not set the cause for trial on the merits, it does not comply

with Rule 683, and we hold that the order is void. Because this holding is

dispositive, we do not need to reach the other issues on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

47.1. We sustain Flowers’s third issue.

Conclusion

We declare the temporary injunction void. We dissolve the temporary

injunction, and we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. 3 2F

Peter Kelly Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.

2 The order stated:

3 This dissolution is without prejudice as to future relief the parties may seek. 4