A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about a Dallas Court of Appeals opinion holding that a temporary injunction that fails to set a trial date on the merits is a void injunction order.  Now the San Antonio Court of Appeals gets into the act and reaffirms the strictness with which temporary injunctions are construed.

In Kotz v. Imperial Capital Bank, the court reaffirmed the principle that "[t]he procedural requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory, and an order granting a temporary injunction that fails to strictly comply with the rule is subject to being declared void and dissolved."  In Kotz, the trial court signed an injunction order with the following language:

The Court finds that Intervenors Patrick Man and Grace Man will suffer irreparable injury in their possession and use of the Subject Property in the event that the requested injunctive relief is not granted, that they have no adequate remedy at law, and that the requested injunctive relief is necessary to preserve the status quo pending final trial.

The court of appeals held that this language violated Rule 683 because it did not provide specific reasons why injury will result without injunctive relief.   After citing examples of numerous other invalidated injunctions, the court stated that the injunction "must be specific and legally sufficient on its face and not merely conclusory."

The Mans argued that the nature of the case justified deviation from Rule 683 because the case involved a dispute to real estate, which is innately unique.  Thus, the Mans argued that the court could presume irreparable injury and lack of an adequate remedy.  But the court of appeals rejected this argument as a basis for overcoming Rule 683’s mandatory requirements.  The court’s opinion dissolving the injunction may be found at this link.