February 18, 2022
There are a relatively few preservation decisions this week, allowing us to contemplate each more fully. Or, alternatively, adjourn to the basketball game earlier.
Table of Contents
Though there is a split of authority, most courts hold that your opponent can first complaint on appeal that a temporary injunction order does not comply with Rule 683
Your complaint must be specific enough
The complaint you make on appeal must be the same complaint you made at trial
While I won’t profile them here, opinions this week reaffirmed that you must make complaint about the following in the trial court
Though there is a split of authority, most courts hold that your opponent can first complaint on appeal that a temporary injunction order does not comply with Rule:
Temporary Injunction: “We reject Willowtax’s argument that the lack of compliance with rule 683 was waived on appeal either because the Arberberrys did not object in the trial court to the order, or their counsel did not dispute certain provisions during the injunction hearing. As we noted before, an injunction order that fails to comply with rule 683 is void, and a party cannot waive the error. E.g., Vista Bank, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 8807, 2021 WL 5027764, at *4. Indeed, because a temporary injunction order that fails to comply with rule 683 is void, a party cannot waive the error even by agreeing to the form or substance of the order. Reiss v. Hanson, No. 05-18-00923-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 3202, 2019 WL 1760360, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 22, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Indep. Capital Mgmt., 261 S.W.3d 795 n.1).
We therefore sustain appellants’ first two issues, vacate the trial court’s temporary injunction order, dissolve the temporary injunction, and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. We do not address appellants’ remaining issues.” Arterberry v. Willowtax, LLC, No. 05-21-00238-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 1123, at *13-14 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 16, 2022)
Your complaint must be specific enough:
Judgment: “From the appellate record, appellant’s only objections potentially implicating the text of the original divorce decree are his contentions that appellee’s October 9th proposed order contained material changes to the original divorce decree and that it contained material errors. But because these objections are so broadly formulated, they fail to satisfy the specificity requirement for the objection to be preserved for this court’s review.” In the Int. of E.N.B., No. 14-21-00169-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 1153, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 17, 2022)
The complaint you make on appeal must be the same complaint you made at trial:
Judgment: “As for appellant’s objections made to the trial court that the October 9th proposed order was filed without either having conferred with appellant or obtained his signature, that the alleged changes to the divorce decree were unagreed, and that an attorney’s fee award was unwarranted due to appellant ostensibly having prevailed at trial, these objections could not have preserved the altogether different argument that the divorce decree’s text barred an attorney’s fee award.” In the Int. of E.N.B., No. 14-21-00169-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 1153, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 17, 2022)
All for now. I hope this helps.
Yours, Steve Hayes
email@example.com; 817/371-8759; www.stevehayeslaw.com