CROSSOVER: No Trial Date, No Injunction: Rule 683 Voids Defective Texas Temporary Injunctions

Johnson v. Zurita, 01-25-00794-CV, October 16, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 2, Brazoria County, Texas

Synopsis

A temporary injunction is void if the injunction order does not set the case for trial on the merits, as expressly required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. Because Rule 683’s requirements are mandatory and must be strictly followed, the First Court of Appeals vacated the injunction rather than remanding for the trial court to add a trial date.

Relevance to Family Law

The Rule 683 defect identified in Johnson can arise whenever a Texas family-law court grants a temporary injunction, including in divorce proceedings involving the preservation of marital property, restrictions on asset transfers, business operations, access to real property, or other conduct pending final trial. Counsel should distinguish a formal temporary injunction from other temporary orders authorized by the Texas Family Code, but when Rule 683 applies, the signed order itself must satisfy the rule’s mandatory requirements—including setting the cause for trial on the merits.

The case is especially important at the order-drafting stage. Proof of a probable right to relief and probable imminent injury will not save an injunction whose form violates Rule 683. Nor, under the First Court of Appeals’ analysis, may an omitted trial setting be treated as a minor clerical defect that can simply be added on remand.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Kris and Sara Zurita sued neighboring property owners Brenda Johnson, Tamara Rhodes, and Braylee Busby for claims that included negligence, trespass, vandalism, conversion, and property damage. The parties shared a fence line, and the Zuritas alleged that the appellants allowed animals to enter their property, directed bright lights toward their home, and engaged in other conduct affecting the Zuritas’ property and livestock. The appellants asserted counterclaims for trespass, conversion, and harassment.

The Zuritas requested temporary and permanent injunctive relief. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court signed a temporary injunction prohibiting the appellants and persons acting in concert with them from entering the Zuritas’ property, allowing livestock and other animals to enter the property, firing firearms in specified directions, obstructing the shared county road, threatening to run over persons or animals, and taking actions or making statements intended to harass or offend.

The injunction contained findings addressing trespass, harassment, probable success, the absence of an adequate remedy, and preservation of the status quo. It also set a $100 bond. The order did not, however, set the case for trial on the merits.

The appellants pursued an interlocutory appeal under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(4). They argued both that the order was void under Rule 683 and that the injunction was overly broad and unsupported by the evidence.

Issues Decided

Whether the temporary injunction was void because the order failed to set the case for trial on the merits as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683.
Whether the omission could be corrected through a remand permitting the trial court to add a trial date.

The court did not reach the appellants’ separate challenge to the injunction’s breadth or evidentiary support because the Rule 683 defect was dispositive.

Rules Applied

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 governs the required form and scope of temporary restraining orders and temporary injunctions. Among other requirements, it provides that 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.”

The court applied the following authorities:

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683: A temporary-injunction order must set the cause for trial on the merits.
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(4): Authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction.
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002): Explains that a temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy intended to preserve the status quo pending a trial on the merits. An applicant generally must establish a cause of action, a probable right to relief, and a probable, imminent, and irreparable interim injury.
InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Construction Co., 715 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1986): Holds that Rule 683’s requirements are mandatory and must be strictly followed.
Conlin v. Haun, 419 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.): Holds that a temporary injunction violating Rule 683 is void and rejects the characterization of such an injunction as merely voidable.
Clark v. Hastings Equity Partners, LLC, 651 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2022, no pet.): Confirms that failure to comply with Rule 683 renders an injunction order void.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1: Permitted the court to refrain from addressing the remaining appellate issue once the Rule 683 issue disposed of the appeal.

Application

The appellate court began with the proposition that a temporary injunction preserves the status quo pending a final adjudication. That limited purpose explains why Rule 683 requires the injunction order to connect the interim relief to a trial on the ultimate merits.

Although the trial court’s order included substantive findings and imposed a bond, it did not set the case for trial. The parties did not dispute that omission. The Zuritas instead argued that the failure to include a trial date was inadvertent and could be corrected through remand, without vacating the injunction.

The First Court of Appeals rejected that proposed remedy. Under InterFirst Bank, Conlin, and Clark, Rule 683’s requirements are mandatory rather than directory. The missing trial setting therefore was not a minor irregularity that left the injunction effective while the trial court corrected it. It rendered the injunction void.

Because the order was void, the court did not evaluate whether the injunction was overly broad or whether the evidentiary record supported each restriction. The formal defect alone required disposition of the appeal.

Holding

The First Court of Appeals held that a temporary-injunction order that does not set the case for trial on the merits violates Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 and is void. The rule must be strictly followed even when the omission appears inadvertent.

The court further held that remand to add a trial date was not the proper remedy. Because the noncompliant order was void rather than merely voidable, the court vacated the temporary injunction.

The court did not decide whether the injunction was overly broad or unsupported by the evidence because resolution of the Rule 683 issue made consideration of the remaining appellate issue unnecessary.

Family Law Crossover

In Texas family-law litigation, the relevant procedural mechanism is a temporary injunction designed to preserve property, rights, or the status quo until final trial. Examples include injunctions restricting the transfer or concealment of marital assets, the disposition of business interests, damage to real or personal property, interference with financial records, or specified conduct affecting property that is the subject of the divorce.

When the court grants a temporary injunction governed by Rule 683, the written order must itself include a setting for trial on the merits concerning the ultimate relief sought. An oral trial setting, an anticipated future setting, or counsel’s expectation that the case will proceed to trial does not satisfy the language requiring the injunction order to include the setting. Practitioners likewise should not assume that a separate scheduling document will cure an otherwise defective injunction without closely examining the controlling authorities and the language of the signed order.

Family-law counsel must also identify the procedural source of the relief. The Family Code authorizes several forms of temporary relief, and the availability of interlocutory review may differ from the review available in an ordinary civil case under section 51.014(a)(4). A formal temporary injunction may implicate Rule 683, while other temporary orders may be governed principally by the applicable Family Code provisions. That classification should be addressed before drafting the order, objecting to its form, or selecting an appellate remedy.

Practical Application

For the applicant, Johnson makes order preparation part of the burden of obtaining effective injunctive relief. Counsel should not leave the trial-date provision for later supplementation. A proposed temporary injunction should contain a specific trial setting, along with the other findings, descriptions, bond provisions, and directives required by Rule 683.

For the respondent, the first review of a signed injunction should be textual. Before undertaking a broader evidentiary challenge, determine whether the order complies on its face with every mandatory component of Rule 683. A facial defect may provide a narrower and dispositive basis for appellate relief.

Common family-law applications include:

Divorce and marital-property preservation: An order restricting transfers, withdrawals, encumbrances, destruction of property, or changes to business operations should be reviewed for Rule 683 compliance if issued as a temporary injunction.
Closely held businesses: Injunctive provisions affecting management rights, distributions, corporate records, or access to accounts must be precise and procedurally complete.
Real-property disputes within a divorce: Restrictions concerning occupancy, access, sale, waste, or removal of property may function as injunctive relief and should be analyzed accordingly.
Third-party disputes connected to a divorce: When relief is sought against business entities, relatives, trustees, or other third parties, ordinary civil injunction rules and interlocutory appellate procedures may assume greater importance.
SAPCR proceedings: Counsel should determine whether the challenged directive is a temporary order under the Family Code, a Rule 683 injunction, or both. That determination affects the required form of the order and the potential avenue for appellate review.
Post-judgment litigation: If injunctive relief is sought while enforcement, clarification, or related claims remain pending, the order should identify the ultimate merits to be tried and include the required setting when Rule 683 applies.

Checklists

Drafting a Rule 683-Compliant Temporary Injunction

Identify the causes of action supporting the requested injunction.
State the applicant’s probable right to the relief sought.
Identify the probable, imminent, and irreparable interim injury.
Explain why legal remedies are inadequate.
State the reasons for issuing the injunction within the order itself.
Describe the restrained conduct in specific, enforceable terms.
Avoid directives that depend on subjective intent or undefined standards.
State the date and time when the injunction was issued.
Set the required bond and ensure it is filed and approved.
Include a specific setting for trial on the merits concerning the ultimate relief sought.
Confirm that the signed order—not merely a docket entry or oral pronouncement—contains the trial setting.
Compare the final signed order against the proposed order before leaving the hearing.

Reviewing an Adverse Temporary Injunction

Determine whether the order sets the case for trial on the merits.
Confirm that the order states specific reasons for issuance.
Determine whether the order identifies the injury to be prevented.
Examine whether each prohibited act is described with sufficient specificity.
Check whether the injunction improperly incorporates pleadings or other documents by reference.
Verify that the required bond was set and filed.
Compare the written order with the relief requested in the pleadings.
Determine whether the evidence supports each material restriction.
Identify whether the order preserves or changes the status quo.
Calendar the deadline for any available interlocutory appeal.
Evaluate whether the Family Code limits interlocutory review and whether mandamus may be the appropriate procedural vehicle.

Preparing for the Temporary-Injunction Hearing

Plead a viable underlying cause of action.
Connect each proposed restriction to the ultimate relief requested.
Present evidence of a probable right to relief.
Present evidence showing imminent, non-speculative injury.
Establish why damages or other legal remedies are inadequate.
Prepare a complete proposed order before the hearing.
Obtain an available merits-trial date from the court coordinator.
Ensure that the proposed order includes that setting.
Preserve objections to the form, scope, and evidentiary basis of the opposing party’s proposed order.
Request a ruling on disputed language before the order is signed.

Selecting the Appellate Procedure

Classify the order as a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, Family Code temporary order, or final injunction.
Determine whether Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014 authorizes an interlocutory appeal.
Review any Family Code provision restricting an interlocutory appeal.
Consider mandamus when direct interlocutory review is unavailable.
Raise facial Rule 683 defects as threshold issues.
Request vacatur when controlling authority treats the order as void.
Preserve alternative challenges to breadth, specificity, evidentiary support, and irreparable injury.
Avoid assuming that a motion to modify or a later trial setting necessarily cures the original defect.

Citation

Johnson v. Zurita, No. 01-25-00794-CV, slip op. (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 16, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

~~3f432e65-78d5-410a-a2ce-79a783009c89~~

Share this content: