CROSSOVER: Rule 683 Strict-Compliance Case: Temporary Injunction Void Without a Merits Trial Setting

Griffith v. Barrett, 14-25-00282-CV, May 05, 2026.

On appeal from 164th District Court, Harris County, Texas

Synopsis

A temporary injunction that does not include an order setting the case for trial on the merits is void under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. In Griffith v. Barrett, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals strictly enforced Rule 683, reversed the injunction, dissolved it, and remanded because the order merely stated it would remain effective until final judgment or further order, without an actual merits trial setting.

Relevance to Family Law

This is a crossover procedural decision with real force in Texas family litigation. Although family cases often proceed under the Family Code and many temporary orders in SAPCR and divorce practice arise from statutory authority rather than classic Rule 683 injunction practice, family litigators routinely seek or resist injunctive relief in disputes involving property preservation, business control, access to records, asset dissipation, harassment, communications, and conduct restraints pending trial. When a trial court signs a temporary injunction in a divorce, post-divorce enforcement dispute, or custody-adjacent property fight, Griffith is a reminder that Rule 683 defects remain potent appellate and mandamus-adjacent attack points. If the order is truly injunctive in character and lacks a merits trial setting, it is vulnerable as void—not merely erroneous.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The appeal arose from an interlocutory order granting a temporary injunction. The opinion does not dwell on the underlying merits dispute, because the appellate court resolved the case on facial noncompliance with Rule 683. What mattered was the text of the injunction itself. The order stated that it would “remain in full force and effect until final judgment in this case or further order of this Court,” but it did not include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits.

That omission became dispositive. The appellants challenged the injunction on Rule 683 grounds, arguing that the rule’s required contents are mandatory and that failure to include a merits trial setting rendered the order void. The appellee attempted to soften the defect by arguing that omission of a specific trial date is not necessarily fatal if the case is moving forward and remains under judicial supervision. The court rejected that characterization and concluded that the order’s failure to set the case for trial on the merits required dissolution.

Issues Decided

• Whether a temporary injunction is void under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 when the order does not include an order setting the case for trial on the merits.
• Whether the omission of a merits trial setting is a mandatory Rule 683 defect requiring reversal and dissolution.
• Whether Qwest Communications supports the proposition that the absence of a trial setting can be excused if the case is otherwise progressing under the court’s supervision.

Rules Applied

Rule 683 was the centerpiece. The court emphasized that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 requires that every temporary injunction order include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate relief sought. The court treated that requirement as mandatory, not aspirational.

The opinion relied on familiar Supreme Court authority:

• InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Construction Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam), for the proposition that Rule 683’s requirements are mandatory and must be strictly followed.
• Qwest Communications Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam), for the proposition that an injunction failing to comply with Rule 683 is subject to being declared void and dissolved.
• Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002), for the general standards governing temporary injunctions.
• Harley Channelview Properties, LLC v. Harley Marine Gulf, LLC, 690 S.W.3d 32, 37 (Tex. 2024), for the current articulation of the substantive temporary-injunction elements.
• Henry v. Cox, 520 S.W.3d 28, 33–34 (Tex. 2017), reinforcing that interlocutory review of a temporary injunction does not decide the underlying merits.

The court also reiterated the abuse-of-discretion standard, while making clear that a trial court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law to established facts.

Application

The court’s analysis was short and direct. It began with the premise that Rule 683 is a strict-compliance rule. That matters because many injunction appeals invite courts to look past drafting defects if the practical intent of the order is clear. The Fourteenth Court refused to do that here. Instead, it looked at the four corners of the injunction and asked whether the order itself contained what Rule 683 mandates.

It did not. The order said only that the injunction would remain effective until final judgment or further order. In the court’s view, that language is not a substitute for “an order setting the cause for trial on the merits.” The distinction is significant. Rule 683 requires more than an endpoint tied to eventual case disposition; it requires an affirmative trial setting.

The appellee’s effort to rely on Qwest Communications failed because the case says the opposite of what appellee suggested. The Fourteenth Court explained that Qwest dealt with appellate jurisdiction over a defective temporary injunction and confirmed that form defects can render an injunction void. Rather than rescuing the order, Qwest reinforced the conclusion that facial Rule 683 defects remain reviewable precisely because they may void the injunction.

Once the court identified the missing trial setting, the rest of the analysis was straightforward. Because that defect alone was sufficient to render the temporary injunction void, the court did not reach the remaining appellate issues. It reversed, dissolved the injunction, and remanded.

Holding

The Fourteenth Court held that Rule 683’s requirement that every temporary injunction include an order setting the case for trial on the merits is mandatory and must be strictly followed. An order stating only that the injunction remains in effect until final judgment or further order does not satisfy that requirement.

The court further held that the omission rendered the temporary injunction void. Because the defect was dispositive, the proper remedy was reversal of the injunction order, dissolution of the temporary injunction, and remand for further proceedings.

Practical Application

For family lawyers, the practical lesson is not abstract. In divorce cases involving business interests, exclusive use of property, preservation of financial accounts, anti-harassment restraints, or injunctions tied to disputed management of community assets, counsel should treat Rule 683 as a live appellate tripwire. If you are seeking injunctive relief outside the ordinary framework of statutory temporary orders under the Family Code, your order needs to be built like an injunction order, not like a generic temporary-orders ruling.

This case is especially useful in hybrid cases where family-law pleadings include tort, fiduciary-duty, entity-control, or third-party property claims. Those cases often produce “temporary orders” that are functionally injunctions. Griffith gives the respondent a clean procedural attack when the order lacks a merits trial setting or contains other classic Rule 683 defects. In a time-sensitive family case, dissolving the injunction may materially shift leverage over possession, control of accounts, business operations, or access to records.

For the movant, Griffith is a drafting warning. Do not assume the court coordinator’s later scheduling action cures the order. Do not assume a final trial date already in the clerk’s system is enough unless the injunction itself includes the required setting language. And do not assume appellate courts will overlook the defect because the equities are strong. Strict compliance means strict compliance.

Checklists

Drafting a Rule 683-Compliant Temporary Injunction

• Confirm that the relief sought is truly injunctive and not merely a Family Code temporary order.
• Include a specific order setting the cause for trial on the merits.
• Ensure the injunction states the reasons for its issuance with adequate specificity.
• Describe the restrained conduct in definite, enforceable terms.
• Avoid incorporating prohibited acts by reference to pleadings or testimony alone.
• State the persons bound by the order with clarity consistent with Rule 683 and Rule 692 principles.
• Include bond language if required.
• Review the order against the text of Rule 683 before submission.

Attacking a Defective Temporary Injunction in Family Litigation

• Compare the signed order against each mandatory element of Rule 683.
• Determine whether the order includes an actual merits trial setting, not just a statement that it remains effective until final judgment.
• Check whether the order states the reasons for issuance beyond conclusory recitals.
• Evaluate whether the prohibited conduct is specific enough to support contempt enforcement.
• Raise voidness arguments immediately in the trial court and preserve them for interlocutory appeal where available.
• Consider whether the injunction’s defects create leverage for emergency relief, dissolution, or narrowing.
• In crossover family-business cases, analyze whether the order is susceptible to characterization as a Rule 683 injunction.

Protecting Your Client When Seeking Emergency Relief

• Decide at the outset whether you are proceeding under Family Code temporary-orders authority, Rule 680/683 injunctive authority, or both.
• Match the proposed order’s form to the authority invoked.
• Obtain a trial setting before or at the time the injunction is signed.
• Put the trial setting in the body of the injunction order itself.
• Coordinate with the court coordinator early so the setting is concrete and memorialized.
• Circulate a clean proposed order that tracks Rule 683 line by line.
• Anticipate appellate scrutiny and draft as though the order will be reviewed the same week.

Using Griffith as a Defensive Tool in Divorce and SAPCR-Adjacent Cases

• Scrutinize emergency orders restricting asset transfers, business operations, communications, or access to children’s records if they are framed as injunctions.
• Separate true Family Code temporary orders from injunctive restraints that must satisfy Rule 683.
• Use facial defects to seek rapid dissolution before litigating merits-heavy injunction elements.
• Frame the defect as voidness, not harmless error.
• Cite InterFirst Bank, Qwest, and Griffith together for strict-compliance and dissolution.
• Press the point that “until final judgment” language does not satisfy the rule’s merits-setting requirement.

Citation

Griffith v. Barrett, No. 14-25-00282-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 5, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

Family Law Crossover

This ruling can be weaponized effectively in divorce and custody litigation when the opposing side obtains broad “injunctive” restraints without respecting injunction procedure. In practice, that often happens when a lawyer presents a proposed order restricting bank withdrawals, business decision-making, contact with third parties, dissemination of information, or use of property, and the order is signed in a form that looks like a temporary injunction but omits Rule 683’s mandatory features. Griffith gives the responding party a sharp procedural blade: if the order lacks a merits trial setting, you may be able to collapse the injunction without first fighting through the factual disputes that usually dominate temporary-relief hearings.

Strategically, that matters because emergency family litigation is often driven by control, not just adjudication. If your opponent secures an injunction freezing a business, restricting access to accounts, or limiting conduct around disputed property, dissolving the order on Rule 683 grounds can reset bargaining power immediately. It can also expose the other side’s overreach and force them to return to court with a properly supported and properly drafted request. For the movant, the lesson is equally strategic: in family cases with crossover commercial or property features, procedural sloppiness can forfeit otherwise valuable interim relief.

~~8cbd33a4-e6d9-4765-8563-e65ff3267086~~