Motion to Dissolve a Temporary Injunction in Texas

What Is a Motion to Dissolve a Temporary Injunction?

Background

The purpose of the motion to dissolve is to provide a means to show that changed circumstances or changes in the law require the modification or dissolution of the injunction; the purpose is not to give an unsuccessful party an opportunity to relitigate the propriety of the original grant. (Roberts v. Roberts Pub. Co. (2006) No. 10-05-00134-CV, at *1 citing Tober v. Turner of Texas, Inc. (1984) 668 S.W.2d 831, 836.)

The function of a temporary injunction is to maintain the status quo, which is “the last, actual, peaceable, noncontested status which preceded the pending controversy.” (Transport Co. of Texas v. Robertson Transports (1953) 261 S.W. 2d 549, 553-54; Jordan v. Rash (1988) 745 S.W.2d 549, 555.)

The scope of appellate review of a temporary injunction is limited to the narrow question of whether the action of the trial judge in granting or denying the temporary injunction constitutes a clear abuse of discretion. (Janus Films, Inc. v. Ft. Worth (1962) 163 Tex. 616, 617.)

How to Structure the Motion

“When [changes] circumstances are the basis of a motion to dissolve, the moving party must show some substantial change has occurred since the proper issuance of the temporary injunction such that the order should be dissolved.” (Murphy v. McDaniel (2000) 20 S.W.3d 873, 877 citing Desai, infra, 813 S.W.2d at 642; Tober, supra, 668 S.W.2d at 836.)

The Court’s Decision

The decision to dissolve a temporary injunction is a matter lying within the broad discretion of the trial court. Our review of the trial court's order of dissolution is limited to the narrow question of whether the trial court's action constituted a clear abuse of discretion. (See Tober,668 S.W.2d at 834; State v. Friedmann (1978) 572 S.W.2d 373, 375.)

The trial court has the authority to dissolve a temporary injunction upon a showing of changed conditions. (Desai v. Reliance Mach Work (1991) 813 S.W.2d 640, 641-42; Tober, supra, 668 S.W.2d at 834.) “[A] ‘change in circumstances’ refers to a change in conditions occurring since the granting of the temporary injunction.” (Id.) Changed circumstances may include:

an agreement of the parties,
newly revealed facts, or
a change in the law that make the temporary injunction unnecessary or improper.

(Cf. Desai, 813 S.W.2d at 641-42 [dissolution of temporary injunction where appellees showed they had been effectively excluded from participation in operation and management of company]; see also City of Tyler v. St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. (1966) 405 S.W.2d 330, 333 [only trial court has jurisdiction to modify or vacate permanent injunction based on “changed conditions” because trial court can subpoena witnesses, take evidence, and make findings of fact.])

“[C]ourts who have considered the issue of whether a party can agree to a temporary injunction which is void have soundly rejected this proposition.” (ex. Wrecker Serv. v. Resendez (2017) No. 13-16-00515-CV, at *10-11.) [S]ister courts [have also concurred] that a party who has agreed to a void order has agreed to nothing.” (Id., citing e.g., Conlin v. Haun (2013) 419 S.W.3d 682, 686; In re Corcoran (2011) 343 S.W.3d 268, 269; Leighton v. Rebeles (2011) 343 S.W.3d 270, 273; In re Garza (2003) 126 S.W.3d 268, 271; Evans v. C. Woods, Inc. (1999) 34 S.W.3d 581, 583.) “Accordingly, [this court holds] that the order granting the temporary injunction is void, and the trial court erred by denying the motion to dissolve the temporary injunction.” (Wrecker Serv., supra, citing Qwest Communications Corporation v. AT&T Corp. (2000) 24 S.W.3d 334, 337; Crenshaw v. Chapman (1991) 814 S.W.2d 400, 402 [holding that a temporary injunction order imposing a “freeze” on estate assets was “fatally defective” and void where the order did not set the case for trial.])

“As some of the cases discussing the impropriety of dissolving a temporary injunction without a change in circumstances have stated, the best course of conduct is not to retry the granting of the temporary injunction, it is to obtain a final judgment on the merits of the proceeding.” (Roberts v. Roberts Pub. Co. (2006) No. 10-05-00134-CV, at *1.)

Documents for Motion to Dissolve a Temporary Injunction in Texas

Sort By

JETTEXAS OIL, LLC, et al vs. STEWART HOGE, et al document preview

NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT - MOTION TO DISSOLVE

4 pages

FILED 11/21/2023 5:10 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK …