CROSSOVER: No Evidence, No Injunction: Houston Court Reverses Temporary Injunction Granted on Counsel Argument Alone | Williams v. Houston Housing Authority (2026)

Kelvin Williams v. Houston Housing Authority, 14-25-00868-CV, July 02, 2026.

On appeal from 215th District Court, Harris County, Texas

Synopsis

A temporary injunction cannot survive appellate review if the applicant put on no competent evidence at the injunction hearing. The Fourteenth Court reversed because the movant relied on lawyer argument and materials attached elsewhere in the file, but offered no sworn testimony and no admitted exhibits to prove probable right to recovery or probable, imminent, irreparable injury.

Relevance to Family Law

This opinion matters in Texas family-law practice because temporary injunctive relief is routine in divorce, SAPCR, modification, property-preservation, and harassment-adjacent litigation. Whether the requested order is aimed at freezing accounts, stopping the transfer of community assets, barring access to a residence, preventing interference with possession, or restricting conduct around children, the same evidentiary rule applies: pleadings are not evidence, counsel’s argument is not evidence, and unattached or unadmitted affidavits in the file do not fill the gap. If you want a temporary injunction to stick on appeal, you must build an evidentiary record at the hearing itself.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Houston Housing Authority obtained a temporary injunction against Kelvin Williams, prohibiting him from entering or placing materials on certain property in north Houston. On appeal, Williams challenged the sufficiency of the support for that injunction.

The critical fact was not the underlying property dispute but the manner in which the injunction was obtained. At the temporary-injunction hearing, the Housing Authority did not call any sworn witnesses and did not offer any exhibits into evidence. Instead, its position was supported only through attorney argument and by reference to materials that had been attached to a traditional motion for summary judgment or to pleadings. The appellate court treated that omission as dispositive.

Issues Decided

• Whether a temporary injunction may stand when the applicant presented no sworn testimony and no admitted exhibits at the injunction hearing.
• Whether attorney argument can constitute competent evidence sufficient to establish a probable right to recovery and a probable, imminent, irreparable injury.
• Whether affidavits attached to pleadings or summary-judgment filings, but not admitted at the temporary-injunction hearing, can support injunctive relief.

Rules Applied

A party seeking a temporary injunction must plead and prove:

1. A cause of action against the opposing party;
2. A probable right to recovery; and
3. A probable, imminent, and irreparable injury if the injunction does not issue.

The court relied on several familiar authorities:

• Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002), for abuse-of-discretion review.
• Harley Channelview Props., LLC v. Harley Marine Gulf, LLC, 690 S.W.3d 32, 37 (Tex. 2024), for the elements an applicant must prove.
• Operation Rescue-Nat’l v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Tex., Inc., 975 S.W.2d 546, 560 (Tex. 1998), for the proposition that a trial court has no discretion to grant injunctive relief without supporting evidence.
• Ron v. Ron, 604 S.W.3d 559, 568 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. denied), for the requirement that probable right to recovery and probable injury be established by competent evidence adduced at the hearing.
• Millwrights Local Union No. 2484 v. Rust Eng’g Co., 433 S.W.2d 683, 686–87 (Tex. 1968), for the principle that proof supporting a temporary injunction may not be made merely by affidavit attached to pleadings, absent agreement or admission into evidence.
• Shor v. Pelican Oil & Gas Mgmt., LLC, 405 S.W.3d 737, 751 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.), recognizing that materials attached to summary-judgment filings do not automatically become injunction evidence.
• Bay Fin. Savings Bank, FSB v. Brown, 142 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.), for the rule that attorney remarks are not evidence unless counsel is actually testifying.

Application

The Fourteenth Court applied the law in a straightforward but important way. It began with the settled premise that a temporary injunction requires proof, not merely allegations. The trial court held a hearing, but the applicant used that hearing as an argument setting rather than an evidentiary proceeding. No witness was sworn. No affidavit was offered and admitted. No exhibit was tendered and received. No stipulation supplied the missing proof.

That failure mattered because the two core merits showings for interim injunctive relief—probable right to recovery and probable, imminent, irreparable injury—must be supported by competent evidence introduced at the hearing. The court rejected the idea that counsel’s factual assertions could substitute for proof. It likewise rejected any suggestion that affidavits or other materials sitting in the clerk’s file, whether attached to pleadings or a summary-judgment motion, could silently migrate into the temporary-injunction record. Unless those materials are admitted by agreement or formally introduced into evidence at the hearing, they do not count.

Once the appellate court identified the complete absence of hearing evidence, the outcome followed. With no evidentiary basis for the injunction, the trial court had no discretion to enter it.

Holding

The court held that a temporary injunction cannot stand when the applicant presents no competent evidence at the injunction hearing. Because the Housing Authority offered no sworn testimony and no admitted exhibits, it failed to prove the required elements for temporary injunctive relief.

The court further held that attorney argument is not evidence and cannot establish probable right to recovery or irreparable injury. Counsel’s advocacy may explain the requested relief, but it does not supply the evidentiary foundation Texas law requires.

The court also held that affidavits attached to pleadings or a summary-judgment motion do not support a temporary injunction unless they are admitted into evidence at the hearing or accepted by agreement. Because neither occurred here, those materials could not rescue the injunction. The court reversed the order, dissolved the injunction, and remanded.

Practical Application

For family lawyers, this case is a record-building opinion disguised as a civil injunction case. In divorce litigation, it is common to seek temporary restraining orders followed by temporary injunctions concerning the marital residence, business operations, dissipation of community funds, access to records, communications with children, or preservation of specific property. In SAPCR and modification cases, counsel may seek temporary orders with injunctive features or standalone injunctive relief around school access, travel, interference, or third-party contact. Williams is the reminder that if the hearing record consists only of argument, the order is vulnerable.

The opinion also sharpens defensive practice. If opposing counsel tries to proceed on verified pleadings, affidavits filed with a motion, or generalized proffers, this case gives you a clean appellate and trial-level objection framework. Insist on sworn testimony. Insist that exhibits be offered and admitted. Insist that any affidavit relied upon be formally tendered and that any agreement regarding its use be stated on the record. If none of that happens, the resulting injunction is exposed.

Strategically, this also affects preservation. If you are seeking the injunction, do not assume the judge’s familiarity with the file cures evidentiary defects. It does not. If you are resisting the injunction, make the absence of evidence unmistakable in the record. That can matter both in the trial court and on accelerated appeal.

Checklists

For the Movant: Proving Up a Family-Law Temporary Injunction

• Plead a live cause of action supporting the requested injunction.
• Prepare sworn testimony establishing a probable right to recovery.
• Prepare sworn testimony establishing probable, imminent, irreparable injury.
• Identify why legal remedies are inadequate.
• Mark all exhibits in advance.
• Offer each exhibit into evidence on the record.
• Obtain a ruling admitting each exhibit.
• If relying on affidavits, secure an express agreement from opposing counsel or formally offer the affidavits into evidence.
• Tie the testimony and exhibits to each injunction element.
• Request findings in the order that track the evidentiary showing.

For the Respondent: Attacking an Evidence-Free Injunction Request

• Object if counsel attempts to prove facts through argument alone.
• Object that pleadings are not evidence.
• Object that affidavits attached to pleadings or summary-judgment filings are not before the court unless offered and admitted.
• Require the movant to identify the evidence supporting probable right to recovery.
• Require the movant to identify the evidence supporting probable, imminent, irreparable injury.
• Emphasize the absence of sworn testimony if none is presented.
• Make sure the reporter’s record reflects that no exhibits were admitted.
• Request denial of the application for failure of proof.
• If an injunction is granted anyway, evaluate immediate accelerated appeal.

Hearing Mechanics: Building an Appellate-Proof Record

• Confirm a court reporter is present.
• Pre-mark exhibits and provide copies to the court and opposing counsel.
• Swear every witness.
• Lay predicate for business records, electronic communications, bank records, photographs, and social-media evidence.
• Move for admission of each exhibit separately or in grouped form where appropriate.
• Obtain explicit rulings admitting the exhibits.
• Clarify on the record whether the court is taking judicial notice of anything, and do not confuse judicial notice with proof of contested facts.
• If proceeding by agreement on affidavits or documents, state the agreement clearly on the record.
• Before resting, summarize the admitted evidence tied to each required element.

Family-Law Use Cases Where Williams Should Be Front of Mind

• Injunctions to prevent sale, transfer, concealment, or depletion of community assets.
• Orders excluding a spouse from a residence or business premises.
• Relief aimed at preserving digital records, passwords, or financial access.
• Requests to stop harassment, surveillance, or disruptive conduct tied to possession exchanges.
• Injunctive restraints related to children’s travel, school access, or interference with conservatorship rights.
• Enforcement-adjacent requests where counsel is tempted to rely on the court’s familiarity with the broader case file rather than actual hearing evidence.

Citation

Kelvin Williams v. Houston Housing Authority, No. 14-25-00868-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 2, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

Family Law Crossover

This is the kind of civil ruling that can be weaponized effectively in divorce and custody practice because family courts often move fast, and speed sometimes tempts lawyers to blur the line between pleading and proof. If your opponent seeks to exclude your client from the marital residence, freeze accounts, prevent contact at a school, restrict travel, or bar alleged interference with property or possession, Williams gives you a precise rejoinder: no injunction without competent evidence admitted at the hearing. That means no “the court knows this case,” no reliance on a verified motion sitting in the file, no bootstrapping from a pending summary-judgment record, and no factual narration by counsel as a substitute for testimony.

Offensively, the case is just as useful. If you are the movant, Williams tells you exactly how to insulate your order. Put on a witness. Admit the bank records, texts, emails, deeds, ledgers, school records, photographs, police reports where admissible, and any agreed affidavits. Prove the threatened harm is imminent and irreparable, not speculative and not fully compensable later. In high-conflict family litigation, the lawyer who treats the temporary-injunction hearing like a mini-trial, rather than an argument docket, is the lawyer most likely to keep the order intact on appeal.

~~3a9d057f-33b1-4035-aa7d-6320b71108cd~~