Opinion
No. 04-04-00589-CV
Delivered and Filed: January 26, 2005.
Appeal from the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas, Trial Court No. DC-03-472, Honorable Alex W. Gabert, Judge Presiding.
Sitting: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice, Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice, Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ORDER VACATED; TEMPORARY INJUNCTION DISSOLVED.
This is an accelerated appeal from the trial court's order granting a temporary injunction in favor of appellee Mario Guillen. In their second issue, appellants argue the order granting the temporary injunction is void because it does not state the reasons relief was granted and does not require Guillen to file a separate bond. We agree.
Rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires an order granting a temporary injunction to "set forth the reasons for its issuance." Tex. R. Civ. P. 683. The Texas Supreme Court has construed Rule 683 to require the trial court "to give the reasons why injury will be suffered if the interlocutory relief is not ordered." State v. Cook United, Inc., 464 S.W.2d 105, 106 (Tex. 1971). An order, such as the one in this case, that merely recites that "[t]he Plaintiff has further demonstrated he will be irreparable [sic] harmed unless the defendants are immediately restrained," fails to comply with Rule 683 and is void. See InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Const. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1986) (holding that "[t]he 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"); Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union 479 v. Becon Constr. Co., 104 S.W.3d 239, 244 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2003, no pet.) (holding that injunction is void if it does not identify the probable injury and articulate why the injury is irreparable and the legal remedy inadequate); Fasken v. Darby, 901 S.W.2d 591, 593 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, no writ) (holding that "[a]n injunction that fails to identify the harm that will be suffered if it does not issue must be declared void and dissolved"); University Interscholastic League v. Torres, 616 S.W.2d 355, 358 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1981, no writ) (holding that an injunction that merely recites "no adequate remedy at law" and "irreparable harm" does not comply with Rule 683).
Rule 684 requires the trial court to "fix the amount of security to be given by the applicant" "[i]n the order granting any . . . temporary injunction." Tex. R. Civ. P. 684. This requirement is mandatory; accordingly, an order granting a temporary injunction that does not set a bond is void. Qwest Communications Corp. v. AT T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam); In re Garza, 126 S.W.3d 268, 273 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]). The trial court's order granting the injunction does not set the amount of security Guillen is to give; indeed, it does not even require Guillen to post a separate bond at all. The order is therefore void.
Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's August 11, 2004, order granting the temporary injunction and dissolve the temporary injunction. No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court. See Tex.R.App.P. 49.4.