FourSite Capital, LLC d/b/a FourSite Energy v. Eckard Land & Acquisition, L.L.C. and Eckard Exploration & Production, L.L.C., 05-25-01705-CV, September 18, 2026.
On appeal from 471st Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas
Synopsis
A temporary injunction entered against a party over whom the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction is void. Although the appellate court may determine the order’s validity, it may not reach the merits of an appeal from that void order; the proper disposition is to vacate the injunction and dismiss the appeal.
Relevance to Family Law
The rule has direct consequences when a Texas family court attempts to restrain a nonresident spouse, parent, business entity, trustee, or other third party. If personal jurisdiction is required for the relief requested and has not been established, the court cannot impose an injunction regulating that person’s conduct merely because the underlying dispute concerns a divorce, conservatorship, or marital property estate.
The jurisdictional analysis must remain claim- and remedy-specific. A Texas court may possess jurisdiction to determine marital status or may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over a child-custody proceeding under the UCCJEA without necessarily possessing personal jurisdiction to impose monetary obligations or affirmative personal restraints on a nonresident. Likewise, UIFSA, long-arm statutes, service rules, and due-process minimum contacts may govern other forms of family-law relief. FourSite underscores that subject-matter jurisdiction over the case does not substitute for personal jurisdiction over the person being enjoined.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Eckard Land & Acquisition, L.L.C. and Eckard Exploration & Production, L.L.C. sued FourSite Capital, LLC d/b/a FourSite Energy and other defendants in Collin County. FourSite challenged the Texas court’s personal jurisdiction through a special appearance.
While the underlying litigation remained pending, the trial court signed a temporary injunction on December 5, 2025, prohibiting certain conduct by FourSite. FourSite pursued an interlocutory appeal from that injunction under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(4). It also requested that the Dallas Court of Appeals stay the injunction while the appeal was pending.
In a separate interlocutory appeal arising from the same trial-court cause, the Dallas Court of Appeals reviewed the denial of FourSite’s special appearance. In Donarski v. Eckard Land & Acquisition, L.L.C., the court reversed that denial and rendered judgment dismissing all claims against FourSite for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The injunction appeal therefore reached the appellate court after a prior panel had already determined that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over FourSite. The controlling question was no longer whether the temporary injunction satisfied the ordinary requirements for injunctive relief. Instead, the threshold issue was whether any enforceable injunction could have been entered against FourSite at all.
Issues Decided
-
Whether the prior panel’s personal-jurisdiction decision controlled the injunction appeal.
-
Whether a temporary injunction entered against a party over whom the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction is void.
-
Whether § 51.014(a)(4) authorized the appellate court to review the merits of a temporary injunction that was itself void.
-
What disposition was required once the appellate court determined that the injunction was void.
-
Whether FourSite’s motion to stay the temporary injunction remained justiciable after the injunction was vacated.
Rules Applied
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(4) authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction. Section 51.014(a)(7) separately authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying a special appearance. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.1(a) classifies statutorily authorized appeals from interlocutory orders as accelerated appeals.
The court applied the following jurisdictional principles:
-
A judgment or order entered without jurisdiction over the affected party is void. In re Green Oaks Hospital Subsidiary, L.P., 297 S.W.3d 452, 455–56 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, orig. proceeding); Masa Custom Homes, LLC v. Shahin, 547 S.W.3d 332, 338 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2018, no pet.).
-
Injunctive relief directed against a party is void when the trial court lacks jurisdiction over that party. In re Creuzot, 637 S.W.3d 186, 190 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2021, orig. proceeding).
-
An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of an appeal from a void order. It may determine whether the order is valid and issue the orders appropriate to that determination. Freedom Communications, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 623–24 (Tex. 2012).
-
Appellate courts must examine their own jurisdiction sua sponte. Freedom Communications, 372 S.W.3d at 624.
-
When the appealed order is void because the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction, the proper disposition is to declare or treat the order as void, vacate it, and dismiss the appeal. State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. 1995); In the Estate of Knies, No. 05-18-00919-CV, 2018 WL 5603569, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 30, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.).
The court also relied on horizontal stare decisis. One panel of the Dallas Court of Appeals may not overrule a prior panel absent an intervening change in controlling law or an en banc decision. MobileVision Imaging Services, L.L.C. v. LifeCare Hospitals of North Texas, L.P., 260 S.W.3d 561, 566 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.).
Application
The court began with its prior decision in Donarski. That decision arose from the same trial-court case and held that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over FourSite. Because there had been no intervening change in the law and no en banc decision displacing Donarski, the panel was required to follow it.
That jurisdictional determination resolved the status of the temporary injunction. The trial court had purported to regulate FourSite’s conduct even though it lacked adjudicatory authority over FourSite. The resulting injunction was therefore void, not merely erroneous or subject to reversal based on an abuse of discretion.
That distinction controlled the scope of appellate review. Section 51.014(a)(4) ordinarily permits review of a temporary injunction, including whether the applicant established a probable right to recovery, a probable and imminent injury, and the absence of an adequate legal remedy. But a statutory right to take an interlocutory appeal does not transform a void trial-court order into one whose merits may be adjudicated.
Under Freedom Communications, the appellate court could examine the injunction far enough to determine whether it was valid. Once it concluded that the order was void for lack of personal jurisdiction, however, it could not decide the conventional temporary-injunction issues. It instead vacated the injunction and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Vacatur also eliminated the need for interim appellate relief. Because the injunction no longer existed, FourSite’s motion to stay it pending appeal became moot.
Holding
The Dallas Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s temporary injunction against FourSite was void because the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over FourSite.
The court further held that it had authority to determine the injunction’s validity but lacked jurisdiction to consider the substantive merits of an appeal from the void order. Accordingly, it vacated the December 5, 2025 temporary injunction and dismissed the interlocutory appeal.
Finally, the court denied FourSite’s motion to stay the temporary injunction as moot because vacatur had eliminated the order FourSite sought to stay.
Practical Application
Family-law litigators should treat personal jurisdiction as a threshold issue whenever temporary injunctive relief is requested against a nonresident. The court’s jurisdiction over the divorce, the child, Texas property, or another party does not automatically establish jurisdiction to issue personal commands against every person connected to the dispute.
In a divorce involving a nonresident spouse, counsel should distinguish between the court’s authority to dissolve the marriage and its authority to impose personal obligations. A Texas court may have jurisdiction over marital status while lacking personal jurisdiction to order the nonresident spouse to pay money, transfer out-of-state property, assume liabilities, or comply with affirmative restraints that operate in personam.
In custody litigation, counsel should separately analyze UCCJEA subject-matter jurisdiction, notice, and personal jurisdiction. The UCCJEA may authorize a Texas court to make a child-custody determination without traditional personal jurisdiction over a parent, but that does not necessarily authorize unrelated monetary relief or personal injunctions beyond the statutory custody determination.
In disputes involving marital businesses, trusts, closely held entities, or third-party transferees, adding the entity or individual to the caption is not enough. Before requesting an injunction against a nonresident entity, counsel should establish valid service, a statutory jurisdictional basis, purposeful Texas contacts, and the connection between those contacts and the claims supporting the requested relief.
Counsel should also coordinate related interlocutory appeals. A special-appearance appeal under § 51.014(a)(7) may determine whether an injunction appeal under § 51.014(a)(4) presents any merits for review. When both orders are on appeal, briefing should identify the relationship between the proceedings and explain the requested appellate disposition if the jurisdictional ruling renders the injunction void.
Checklists
Before Requesting an Injunction Against a Nonresident
-
Identify each person or entity whose conduct the proposed order would regulate.
-
Determine whether the requested relief operates in personam, in rem, or within a specialized statutory jurisdictional framework.
-
Confirm a valid statutory basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over each proposed respondent.
-
Develop evidence of purposeful Texas contacts tied to the operative claims.
-
Confirm proper service of process and compliance with applicable notice requirements.
-
Address both specific jurisdiction and due-process fairness in the application and supporting evidence.
-
Draft proposed findings identifying the jurisdictional facts supporting relief.
-
Tailor the proposed injunction to parties and conduct within the court’s authority.
-
Avoid assuming that jurisdiction over a spouse, child, marital status, or Texas asset establishes jurisdiction over a separate nonresident party.
Responding to an Injunction Request
-
File a special appearance before any pleading or motion that could waive the jurisdictional objection.
-
Ensure that the special appearance complies with the due-order-of-pleading and due-order-of-hearing requirements.
-
Object expressly to the court’s authority to issue personal restraints before deciding the special appearance.
-
Request a ruling on the special appearance before any injunction hearing when procedurally available.
-
Preserve objections to service, minimum contacts, relatedness, and traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
-
Separate jurisdictional objections from arguments concerning the injunction’s substantive elements.
-
Request findings of fact and conclusions of law when useful to clarify the jurisdictional ruling.
-
Evaluate accelerated interlocutory appeals under both § 51.014(a)(4) and § 51.014(a)(7).
Handling Parallel Interlocutory Appeals
-
Calendar accelerated deadlines immediately upon entry of the appealable order.
-
Identify all pending appeals arising from the same trial-court cause.
-
Notify the appellate court of related proceedings when required by the appellate rules or local practice.
-
Explain how resolution of the special-appearance appeal affects the validity of the injunction.
-
Ask for vacatur rather than a merits ruling if controlling authority establishes that the injunction is void.
-
Consider requesting emergency relief while recognizing that a later vacatur may moot the stay request.
-
Update the appellate court promptly when a related panel issues a controlling jurisdictional decision.
Drafting Enforceable Temporary Orders in Family Cases
-
Specify the legal and jurisdictional basis for each category of relief.
-
Distinguish status adjudications from personal monetary or affirmative obligations.
-
Separate UCCJEA custody relief from support, fee, property, or other in-personam relief.
-
Identify the assets, conduct, and territorial connections supporting the order.
-
Avoid extending restraints to nonparties or entities over whom jurisdiction has not been established.
-
State the prohibited conduct with the specificity required for injunctive orders.
-
Ensure the order includes all findings and trial settings required for a valid temporary injunction.
-
Reassess the order if a special appearance is sustained on appeal.
Citation
FourSite Capital, LLC d/b/a FourSite Energy v. Eckard Land & Acquisition, L.L.C. and Eckard Exploration & Production, L.L.C., No. 05-25-01705-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 18, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
The procedural mechanism is a combination of two accelerated interlocutory appeals: an appeal from a ruling on a special appearance under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(7), and an appeal from a temporary-injunction order under § 51.014(a)(4). If the special-appearance appeal establishes that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the enjoined party, the injunction is void. The injunction appeal then does not proceed to the ordinary merits analysis; the appellate court determines the order’s validity, vacates it, and dismisses the appeal.
This sequence can arise in a divorce involving a nonresident spouse, a custody-related dispute involving requested relief beyond a UCCJEA custody determination, or marital-property litigation involving a nonresident entity, trustee, family member, or alleged transferee. The key procedural question is whether personal jurisdiction is legally required for the particular restraint imposed. If it is, counsel must establish that jurisdiction independently of the family court’s authority over marital status, children, Texas property, or other parties.
~~b62040af-1d7c-46ce-8ea8-ee620d60a8d6~~
Share this content: