3.0 CFSFH, LLC v. Carolyn Everds Johnson, by and Through Her Agent, Tracy Foreman

3.0 CFSFH · Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth · February 12, 2026 · No. No. 02-25-00464-CV

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, considered an appeal from a probate court's temporary injunction concerning disputed real property in an estate. The court held that the injunction order failed to comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 because its reasons and prohibited conduct were insufficiently specific and its finding of irreparable harm was conclusory. The court reversed the probate court's order, dissolved the injunction, and remanded for further proceedings.

Court
Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth
Writing for the Court
Mike Wallach; Womack; Wallach; Walker
Jurisdiction
Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth
Decision date
February 12, 2026
Docket number
No. 02-25-00464-CV
Procedural posture
Appellant appealed an interlocutory probate-court order granting a temporary injunction.
Standard of review
Temporary injunctions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. A trial court abuses its discretion when it rules arbitrarily or without reference to guiding rules and principles. If some evidence reasonably supports the trial court's decision, there is no abuse of discretion; however, an injunction that fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 683 is void and must be dissolved.
Precedential value
Published memorandum opinion
Parties
3.0 CFSFH, LLC v. Carolyn Everds Johnson, by and through her agent, Tracy Foreman
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

injunctionsinjunction bondsinterlocutory appealprobate procedurereal estate

Practice areas

civil procedureprobatereal estateremediesappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the probate court's temporary-injunction order complied with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683's requirements that the order state specific and legally sufficient reasons, describe the restrained acts in reasonable detail, and address irreparable injury and the absence of an adequate remedy at law.
  2. Whether the probate court erred by refusing to hear Appellant's motions to continue the injunction hearing and to compel discovery.

Holdings

  1. The temporary-injunction order failed to comply with Rule 683 because, apart from a conclusory statement that Appellee had a probable right to relief, it did not directly address Appellee's causes of action or the basis for the claimed probable right to relief.
  2. The temporary-injunction order was insufficiently specific because it referred to property made the basis of the suit, did not define the property or several other terms, and required Appellant to infer the scope of the prohibited conduct from matters outside the order.
  3. The order's finding of irreparable harm was conclusory because it recited that Appellee would suffer immediate and irreparable injury and that Appellant would likely use funds to raze the property, but stated no supporting facts and did not find or recite facts showing that Appellee had no adequate remedy at law.
  4. The order satisfied Rule 683's requirement that the cause be set for trial on the merits because it set a bench trial for January 26, 2026.
  5. Because the temporary-injunction order did not comply with Rule 683, it was void and had to be dissolved; the probate court abused its discretion by entering the order.

Key quotations

The procedural requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory. (5)
A temporary injunction that does not meet these requirements is “subject to being declared void and dissolved.” (5)
Requiring that an enjoined party search for evidence to understand what conduct is enjoined undermines the purposes of an injunction, which are to remedy specific harm and to provide notice of the prohibited conduct. (7)
Therefore, the temporary injunction order is void and dissolved for failure to comply with Rule 683. (8)

Factual background

The underlying matter was an ancillary probate proceeding concerning ownership of real property in the estate of Ralph Alfred Schweitzer, who died intestate in 2019. Appellant claimed ownership through inter vivos transfers from persons claiming to be Schweitzer's adopted children, while Appellee sought to preserve the property and invalidate Appellant's claim while the heirs were being determined. The probate court entered a temporary injunction based on findings that Appellee had a probable right to relief and would suffer irreparable injury from waste, destruction, or alteration of the property. The order also referenced Appellant's $750,000 loan secured by the property and set a bench trial for January 26, 2026.

Procedural history

In an ancillary probate proceeding concerning ownership of real property, the probate court granted Appellee's request for a temporary injunction against Appellant. The injunction restrained Appellant from entering, altering, damaging, or otherwise interfering with the property pending trial. Appellant challenged the injunction under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 and also argued that the probate court improperly refused to hear motions concerning continuance and discovery. The court of appeals sustained the Rule 683 issue, did not reach the second issue, reversed and dissolved the injunction, and remanded for further proceedings.

Remand instructions

The temporary injunction is dissolved, and the cause is remanded to the probate court for further proceedings.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…