Summary
The Texas First Court of Appeals affirmed an order denying appellants’ motion to dissolve a temporary injunction in a dispute concerning alleged embezzlement and fraudulent transfers. The court held that the appellants did not present evidence of changed circumstances or fundamental error and could not use the dissolution appeal to relitigate the propriety of the original injunction.
Holdings
- When an appellant challenges only an order denying a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction and does not appeal the original order granting the injunction, the appellate court may not review the propriety of the original injunctive relief.
- A party seeking dissolution must present evidence of changed circumstances, a change in the law, or fundamental error that makes the injunction unnecessary or improper; a motion to dissolve may not be used merely to relitigate the propriety of the original injunction.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants' motion to dissolve the temporary injunction.
Questions Presented
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review the propriety of the original temporary injunction when appellants appealed only from the order denying their motion to dissolve.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying appellants' motion to dissolve the temporary injunction because appellee allegedly failed to prove irreparable injury.
- Whether appellants presented evidence of changed circumstances, newly revealed facts, or fundamental error requiring dissolution of the temporary injunction.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (18)
- Stewart Beach Condo. Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Gili N Prop. Invs., LLC, 481 S.W.3d 336, 342–43 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.)(followed)
- Conlin v. Haun, 419 S.W.3d 682, 685–86 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.)(followed)
- Intercontinental Terminals Co. v. Vopak N. Am., Inc., 354 S.W.3d 887, 892 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.)(followed)
- Tex. Right to Life v. Van Stean, 702 S.W.3d 348, 355 (Tex. 2024)(followed)
- Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007)(followed)
- Kim v. Ramos, 632 S.W.3d 258, 264 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.)(followed)
- De Los Salmones v. Anchor Dev. Grp., LLC, No. 14-20-00720-CV, 2022 WL 1218541, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 26, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.)(followed)
- Yuwei Enter., Inc. v. Bayou Social Club, LLC, No. 14-24-00109-CV, 2025 WL 411683, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 6, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.)(followed)
- Guardianship of Stokley, No. 05-10-01660-CV, 2011 WL 4600428, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 6, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.)(followed)
- Lee-Hickman’s Invs. v. Alpha Invesco Corp., 139 S.W.3d 698, 700 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2004, no pet.)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 18.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…