Disputes over real property in a Texas probate estate can move fast. An heir or interested party may rush to court for a temporary injunction to stop another claimant from damaging, encumbering, or demolishing property that may belong to the estate. The probate court grants the injunction. Relief secured. Or so it seems.
Here is what catches people off guard. A well-intentioned temporary injunction can be declared void and dissolved on appeal, not because the facts were wrong, but because the order itself failed to comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. When that happens, the protection vanishes.
So what does Rule 683 require, and why do so many injunction orders fall short? The case of 3.0 CFSFH, LLC v. Johnson, by and through her agent, Tracy Foreman, No. 02-25-00464-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 12, 2026) (mem. op.), is a good place to find the answer. It comes out of a contested intestate estate and a fight over who owned the real property.
Facts & Procedural History
Ralph Alfred Schweitzer died intestate in Texas in 2019. He was survived by two children. Both of them later died in 2023 without issue, meaning neither left descendants of their own. That created a real question: who were the rightful heirs, and who owned the real property Schweitzer left behind?
A limited liability company, 3.0 CFSFH, LLC, claimed the property. It said it acquired the property through inter vivos transfers made by two people who claimed to be Schweitzer’s adopted children. Whether those two were actually his legally adopted children was not decided at the injunction stage. Their claimed status, and the validity of the transfers they made, were the heart of the ownership fight.
While the suit to determine Schweitzer’s heirs was still pending, Carolyn Everds Johnson, acting through her agent Tracy Foreman, filed a petition in the probate court asking for a temporary injunction. She wanted to preserve the property and stop the LLC from damaging or encumbering it until the heirship question was resolved. Her concern was concrete: the LLC had borrowed $750,000 against the property, the loan matured May 1, 2026, and the property produced no income. She argued the LLC might use the borrowed money to raze or modify the property before the heirs could recover it.
The probate court heard testimony from Foreman, listened to argument, and granted the injunction. The order restrained the LLC from a long list of conduct: entering the property, making structural modifications, painting, installing or removing fixtures, changing locks, altering landscaping, and more. The LLC appealed. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4). The Fort Worth Court of Appeals reversed and dissolved the injunction, holding the order void because it did not comply with Rule 683.
Temporary Injunctions and What Rule 683 Requires
To understand why the order failed, we first have to look at how temporary injunctions work in Texas. Probate courts have broad jurisdiction over matters tied to an estate, and that reaches ancillary proceedings over property. When property that may belong to an estate is at risk of being damaged or encumbered, a temporary injunction can preserve the status quo while the underlying claims get sorted out.
To get a temporary injunction, a party has to show three things: a cause of action against the other side, a probable right to the relief ultimately sought, and a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the meantime. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 211 (Tex. 2002). The applicant does not have to prove it will win at trial, only that the status quo should hold while the merits are decided. Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam). Courts review these orders for abuse of discretion, which means a trial court goes wrong only when it rules arbitrarily or without reference to guiding rules and principles. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 211.
But evidence is only half the story. The order itself has to clear Rule 683, and those requirements are mandatory. Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam). Rule 683 requires every temporary injunction order to do four things: set forth the reasons for its issuance; be specific in its terms; describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the acts to be restrained; and set the case for trial on the merits. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 683. An order that misses any of these is “subject to being declared void and dissolved,” and a court of appeals can declare it void even when neither party raises the issue. Qwest, 24 S.W.3d at 337; Indep. Cap. Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Collins, 261 S.W.3d 792, 795 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.).
Why so strict? An injunction is a coercive order. A party bound by one has to know exactly what conduct is off limits, without guesswork. As the court explained in TMRJ Holdings, Inc. v. Inhance Techs., LLC, making an enjoined party search outside the four corners of the order to figure out what is prohibited “undermines the purposes of an injunction, which are to remedy specific harm and to provide notice of the prohibited conduct.” 540 S.W.3d 202, 213 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.). The Texas Supreme Court said the same thing decades ago: an injunction must be “as definite, clear and precise as possible” and should tell the restrained party what is prohibited “without calling on him for inferences or conclusions about which persons might well differ.” Villalobos v. Holguin, 208 S.W.2d 871, 875 (Tex. 1948).
How the Court Applied Rule 683
The Fort Worth court walked through the order requirement by requirement. On three of the four, the order came up short.
First, the reasons. Rule 683 requires the order to state specific reasons for issuing it, and those reasons “must be specific and legally sufficient on its face and not merely conclusory.” El Tacaso, Inc. v. Jireh Star, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 740, 744 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.). The probate court’s order said only that Johnson had a “probable right to relief on her claims.” That was not enough. The order never addressed her specific causes of action or identified the legal or factual basis for any probable right to relief. A boilerplate finding that relief is warranted, untethered from the actual claims, is conclusory and fails the rule.
Second, specificity. The order has to describe the restrained conduct in reasonable detail and do it without pointing to other documents. The prohibited conduct must be clear from the order alone. In re Luther, 620 S.W.3d 715, 723 (Tex. 2021). Here, the order described the restrained conduct only by reference to “the real property made the basis of the suit.” That phrase makes an enjoined party go read the petition to find out which property is even at issue, which is exactly what Rule 683 forbids. On top of that, the order barred conduct involving interior and exterior surfaces, fixtures, appliances, equipment, locks, security systems, access controls, outdoor areas, fencing, and “any personal property on the premises,” but defined none of those terms or tied them to a described property. That left too much to inference. As the court put it, forcing an enjoined party to “search for evidence to understand what conduct is enjoined undermines the purposes of an injunction.” TMRJ Holdings, 540 S.W.3d at 213.
Third, irreparable harm. The order has to reflect that the applicant showed there was no adequate remedy at law. Good Shepherd Hosp., Inc. v. Select Specialty Hosp.—Longview, Inc., 563 S.W.3d 923, 929 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2018, no pet.). The order stated that Johnson would “suffer immediate and irreparable injury” and that the LLC would “likely” use borrowed funds to raze the property, but it recited no facts supporting those conclusions. Worse, it never found, and recited no facts supporting, that Johnson had no adequate remedy at law. That omission was independently fatal.
The order got one thing right. Rule 683 requires setting the case for trial on the merits, and a missing trial date alone voids an order. In re Corcoran, 343 S.W.3d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding); First State Bank of Odem v. Flores, No. 13-13-00502-CV, 2014 WL 812578, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi—Edinburg Feb. 27, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.). The order did set a bench trial for January 26, 2026, so on that point it was sufficient. But one requirement out of four does not save an order. All of them must be met, and the court dissolved the injunction as void.
The court also flagged a bond problem that neither side raised. The order set a $2,500 cash bond and said it had been “previously posted,” referring to a bond posted for an earlier temporary restraining order. A TRO bond does not roll over and secure a later temporary injunction unless the court expressly says so. Ex Parte Coffee, 328 S.W.2d 283, 290 (Tex. 1959). An injunction order that does not expressly state either that the prior bond continues or that a new one has been posted is out of step with Rules 683 and 684. Bay Fin. Sav. Bank, FSB v. Brown, 142 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.). It was not the basis for reversal, but the court’s note shows it is one more way a careless order can be voided.
The Takeaway
This case is a reminder that procedural compliance is not a formality. It is the foundation of an enforceable order. A probate court may have every reason in the world to protect estate property from a questionable claimant sitting on a balloon loan and no income. But if the order does not comply with Rule 683, the injunction will not survive appeal, and a void injunction protects nothing. The order has to state specific reasons tied to the applicant’s causes of action, describe the property and the prohibited conduct in enough detail that no outside document is needed, recite facts supporting both irreparable harm and the absence of an adequate legal remedy, set the case for trial, and address bond continuity when a prior TRO bond is involved. The practical lesson for anyone handling probate administration or estate litigation is simple: the work is not done when the judge signs the order. The order itself has to be drafted to satisfy every element of Rule 683, because a void injunction is no protection at all.
Do you need help with a probate matter in El Paso or the surrounding area? We are El Paso probate attorneys. We help clients navigate the probate process. Call today for a free confidential consultation, (915) 292-4400.
Our El Paso Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with temporary injunctions and preserving estate property during probate disputes. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the probate process. We have years of combined experience that we can use to support and guide you with probate and estate matters. Call us today for a FREE attorney consultation.
Disclaimer
The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The information presented may not apply to your situation and should not be acted upon without consulting a qualified probate attorney. We encourage you to seek the advice of a competent attorney with any legal questions you may have.
