SCH-TRIDENT LTD., ET AL., Appellant v. MYY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellee

VACATE and REMAND; Opinion issued August 12, 2008
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-01287-CV
............................
SCH-TRIDENT LTD., ET AL., Appellant
V.
MYY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 07-04115-J
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Wright, Bridges, and Mazzant
Opinion By Justice Bridges
        Appellant SCH-Trident Ltd. brings this interlocutory appeal from the trial court's order granting a temporary injunction in favor of appellee MYY Limited Partnership. SCH-Trident presents six issues for review which can be summarized as complaining that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in granting the temporary injunction because the appellee did not present sufficient evidence to support a temporary injunction, and (2) the trial court's order granting the temporary injunction is void because it does not comply with the mandatory requirements for such an order. Because the issues in this appeal involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we issue this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We vacate the trial court's order granting temporary injunction in favor of MYY Limited Partnership, and dissolve the temporary injunction.
 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
 
        Appellee MYY Limited Partnership (MYY) operates a retail business. It sold an adjacent piece of land to SCH-Trident. The parties granted each other a mutual vehicular and pedestrian easement. The easement agreement required SCH-Trident to “install drainage facilities and/or perform such site work as is necessary to insure that [your] property does not drain onto [MYY's] property.” MYY contends that after SCH-Trident constructed its building, the natural flow of water was altered, causing flooding to MYY's parking lot. MYY further contends that it lost business because of the flooding. At the trial court, MYY sought a temporary injunction to stop the flooding onto its property and to order SCH-Trident to construct an inlet to provide drainage. After a hearing, the trial court granted a temporary injunction in favor of MYY, and ordered SCH-Trident to construct the inlet. SCH-Trident filed this interlocutory appeal from that order.
 
II. TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ORDER
 
        Because it is dispositive of this appeal, we address appellant's complaint that the trial court's order does not comply with the mandatory requirements for such an order.
A. Applicable Law
 
        To be entitled to a temporary injunction, an applicant must plead and prove (1) a cause of action against the defendant; (2) a probable right to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). Rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires every order granting a temporary injunction to state the reasons for its issuance and to be specific in its terms. Tex. R. Civ. P. 683. The procedural requirements of rule 683 are mandatory, and must be strictly followed. Qwest Commc'ns Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam); InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1966) (per curiam). If a temporary injunction order fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of rule 683, it must be declared void and the temporary injunction dissolved. Qwest Commc'ns Corp., 24 S.W.3d at 337; InterFirst Bank, 715 S.W.2d at 641. The right to raise the issue on appeal is not waived by failing to make an objection in the trial court. Qwest Commc'ns Corp., 24 S.W.3d at 337.
        To comply with rule 683, the trial court must set out in the temporary injunction order the reasons it believes the applicant will suffer injury if it does not grant the injunction. State v. Cook United, Inc., 464 S.W.2d 105, 106 (Tex. 1971); AutoNation, Inc. v. Hatfield, 186 S.W.3d 576, 581 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). The reasons must be specific and legally sufficient, and not mere conclusory statements. Charter Med. Corp. v. Miller, 547 S.W.2d 77, 78 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1977, no writ). Furthermore, “[a]n injunction that fails to identify the harm that will be suffered if it does not issue must be declared void and be dissolved.” Fasken v. Darby, 901 S.W.2d 591, 593 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1995, no writ); see also Metra United Escalante, L.P. v. Lynd Co., 158 S.W.3d 535, 541 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2004, no pet.). The decision to grant or deny a temporary injunction is within the trial court's discretion, and we will not reverse that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204. A trial court abuses its discretion by issuing a temporary injunction order that does not comply with the requirements of rule 683. Charter Med. Corp., 547 S.W.2d at 78.
B. Analysis
 
        The trial court's order describes the action MYY sought to enjoin, the allegations MYY made in support of its request for a temporary injunction, and the irreparable injury MYY contended would be caused by SCH-Trident's actions. However, the order does not state the trial court's findings as to these allegations and contentions. Rather, the order states that after considering MYY's application for temporary injunction and the evidence presented, the trial court orally granted the temporary injunction. The order further states the action to be enjoined and the terms of that injunction. However, the order does not state the reasons why the trial court found the temporary injunction is required, or the trial court's finding of the irreparable harm MYY will suffer if the injunction does not issue. See Qwest Commc'ns Corp., 24 S.W.3d at 337; Fasken, 901 S.W.2d at 593; see also InterFirst Bank, 715 S.W.2d at 641; Metra United Escalante, L.P., 158 S.W.3d at 541. In regard to those elements, the order simply recites MYY's allegations or contentions. Therefore, we conclude the temporary injunction order does not meet the mandatory requirements of rule 683 and is void. See Qwest Commc'ns Corp., 24 S.W.3d at 337; InterFirst Bank, 715 S.W.2d at 641; see also Tex. R. App. P. 683.
III. CONCLUSION
 
        We conclude the trial court's temporary injunction order does not comply with the mandatory requirements of rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and is, therefore, void. We VACATE the trial court's order granting a temporary injunction to MYY Limited Partnership, DISSOLVE the temporary injunction, and REMAND the cause for further proceedings.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          DAVID BRIDGES
                                                          JUSTICE
 
071287F.P05