CN Holding, LLC v. Cantu, 13-26-00539-CV, October 15, 2026.
On appeal from 139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas
Synopsis
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 requires every temporary-injunction order to include a setting for trial on the merits. Because the order in CN Holding contained no trial setting, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals declared it void and dissolved it without reaching the substantive merits of the injunction.
Relevance to Family Law
The defect identified in CN Holding can arise whenever a Texas family-law court grants relief that operates as a temporary injunction, including restraints involving marital property, business interests, financial accounts, real estate, personal conduct, or matters affecting the parent-child relationship. Counsel should not assume that a pending divorce or SAPCR docket, an anticipated final hearing, or a separately issued scheduling order necessarily satisfies Rule 683: the temporary-injunction order itself should state the trial setting. Practitioners must also distinguish a Rule 683 temporary injunction from other forms of family-law relief—such as temporary orders, statutory protective orders, and standing orders—because the governing procedures and avenues for appellate review may differ.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The 139th District Court of Hidalgo County entered a temporary injunction involving CN Holding, LLC, parties claiming an interest through the company, and Yesenia Lynett Cantu and Ricardo Cantu. The memorandum opinion does not recount the underlying dispute or the substantive restrictions imposed by the injunction because those matters were unnecessary to the court’s disposition.
The controlling fact appeared on the face of the order: the temporary injunction did not set a date for trial on the merits. The appellants challenged the order on that basis and argued that the omission rendered the injunction void under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683.
Issues Decided
- Whether Rule 683 requires a temporary-injunction order to include a trial setting.
- Whether a temporary injunction that omits the required trial setting is void.
- Whether the appellate court must dissolve the defective injunction without addressing its substantive merits.
Rules Applied
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 provides that an order granting a temporary injunction “shall include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate relief sought.” The word “shall” makes the requirement mandatory rather than discretionary.
The court relied principally on Qwest Communications Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337–38 (Tex. 2000). Under Qwest, a temporary-injunction order that fails to include a trial setting does not comply with Rule 683 and is void.
The court also cited Conway v. Shelby, 432 S.W.3d 377, 380–81 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, no pet.), for the required appellate disposition. When the order lacks the mandatory setting, the appellate court must declare the injunction void, dissolve it, and remand the case for further proceedings.
Application
The court’s analysis was direct because the defect was apparent from the temporary-injunction order. Rule 683 required the order to include a trial setting, but the order contained none. That omission established noncompliance without requiring the court to examine the evidentiary record, the likelihood of imminent injury, the existence of an adequate remedy at law, or the merits of the parties’ underlying claims.
Applying Qwest, the court treated the omission as a voidness defect rather than a matter subject to harmless-error analysis or discretionary correction on appeal. Because the order was void on its face, the court dissolved the temporary injunction and remanded the case without deciding whether injunctive relief otherwise could have been supported.
Holding
A temporary-injunction order that does not include a trial setting is void under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. A court’s grant of temporary injunctive relief cannot remain in effect when the order omits this mandatory term.
Because the injunction was void, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals dissolved it and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The court expressly declined to reach the merits and denied all pending motions.
Practical Application
In divorce litigation, temporary injunctive relief frequently restrains a spouse from transferring community property, changing account ownership, encumbering real estate, altering business records, canceling insurance, or disposing of unusual assets. If that relief is embodied in a temporary-injunction order governed by Rule 683, the order should contain an express trial setting—not merely a statement that trial will occur later or that the case remains subject to the court’s docket.
The same concern arises in custody and SAPCR proceedings when a party seeks injunctive restrictions beyond ordinary temporary conservatorship, possession, or support provisions. Counsel should identify the legal source and procedural character of each form of relief. Labeling a document “temporary orders” will not necessarily control if portions of the order function as an injunction; conversely, not every temporary family-law order is automatically a Rule 683 injunction.
Property cases involving closely held businesses, trusts, partnerships, limited liability companies, or third-party ownership claims deserve particular attention. Family-law litigators often combine statutory temporary orders with conventional injunctive relief. When drafting a hybrid order, counsel should separately identify the authority for each provision and ensure that any Rule 683 component contains all mandatory terms.
A separate scheduling order may not provide a safe substitute for including the setting in the injunction itself. The most reliable practice is to place the trial date, time, and location directly in the signed temporary-injunction order and then confirm that the setting is administratively available.
Finally, dissolution for a Rule 683 defect does not adjudicate whether the applicant could establish entitlement to injunctive relief. On remand, the trial court may conduct further proceedings, and the applicant may seek a procedurally compliant order supported by the necessary pleadings and evidence.
Checklists
Drafting a Temporary Injunction
- [ ] Identify the statutory and procedural authority for each requested restraint.
- [ ] Confirm whether the requested relief constitutes a temporary injunction governed by Rule 683.
- [ ] State the reasons for issuance with the specificity Rule 683 requires.
- [ ] Describe the restrained acts in specific terms rather than by reference to the pleadings.
- [ ] Avoid language that merely commands compliance with the law.
- [ ] Include the date, time, and location for trial on the merits.
- [ ] Confirm the trial setting with the court coordinator before presenting the order for signature.
- [ ] Address the bond requirement or identify the applicable authority governing any departure from it.
- [ ] Ensure that the proposed order matches the relief supported by the pleadings and evidence.
- [ ] Review the complete signed order before leaving the hearing.
Reviewing an Opposing Party’s Proposed Order
- [ ] Determine whether the order expressly sets the case for trial on the merits.
- [ ] Do not rely solely on a docket-control order, scheduling notice, or anticipated future setting.
- [ ] Compare the proposed restraints with the relief requested in the live pleadings.
- [ ] Check whether the order states specific reasons supporting injunctive relief.
- [ ] Identify vague, overbroad, or incorporated-by-reference restrictions.
- [ ] Determine whether the order sets an appropriate bond.
- [ ] Preserve objections to both facial defects and the evidentiary basis for relief.
- [ ] Obtain a file-marked copy of the signed order immediately.
Evaluating a Family-Law Temporary Order
- [ ] Separate temporary conservatorship, possession, support, and statutory property provisions from conventional injunctive relief.
- [ ] Determine whether the Family Code, Rule 683, or both govern the particular provision.
- [ ] Analyze the substance and operation of the relief rather than relying only on the order’s title.
- [ ] Identify whether the order affects nonparties, entities, trusts, or business interests.
- [ ] Determine whether any challenged provision is subject to interlocutory appeal, mandamus review, or neither.
- [ ] Calendar all potentially applicable appellate deadlines.
- [ ] Avoid assuming that the general limits on appealing family-law temporary orders resolve the reviewability of a distinct temporary injunction.
Responding to an Order Without a Trial Setting
- [ ] Confirm from the signed order that no trial setting appears.
- [ ] Verify whether the challenged instrument is legally a temporary injunction subject to Rule 683.
- [ ] Obtain the clerk’s record and any related scheduling orders.
- [ ] Assess the availability and deadline for an accelerated interlocutory appeal.
- [ ] Consider promptly requesting dissolution or correction in the trial court.
- [ ] Cite Qwest Communications Corp. v. AT&T Corp. and CN Holding, LLC v. Cantu.
- [ ] Explain that the appellate issue concerns facial validity and does not require resolution of the underlying merits.
- [ ] Continue preparing for further trial-court proceedings because dissolution does not preclude a new, compliant request for relief.
Protecting an Injunction After Entry
- [ ] Confirm that the signed order contains the same trial setting announced or approved by the court.
- [ ] Serve the order through a method sufficient to establish notice.
- [ ] Monitor any continuance or modification of the trial setting.
- [ ] If the trial date changes, evaluate whether the injunction order should also be amended.
- [ ] Preserve the evidentiary record supporting each required element of injunctive relief.
- [ ] Prepare for accelerated appellate proceedings immediately after entry.
- [ ] Do not treat a correctable drafting omission as inconsequential; Rule 683 compliance is mandatory.
Citation
CN Holding, LLC v. Cantu, No. 13-26-00539-CV, slip op. at 1–2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Oct. 15, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Read the full opinion in CN Holding, LLC v. Cantu.
Family Law Crossover
CN Holding establishes a facial-validity mechanism: if an order is a temporary injunction governed by Rule 683, the order itself must include a setting for trial on the merits. When that mandatory term is absent, the injunction is void and must be dissolved; the reviewing court need not decide whether the evidence otherwise justified temporary relief.
That mechanism can arise in a divorce when a court temporarily restrains the transfer, encumbrance, concealment, or dissipation of property. It can also arise in a SAPCR when the requested relief includes provisions functioning as injunctive restraints rather than ordinary temporary conservatorship, possession, or support terms. In cases involving marital businesses or third-party entities, the issue may appear in orders restricting corporate governance, financial transactions, asset transfers, or access to records.
The first analytical step is classification. Counsel must determine whether the challenged provision is a Rule 683 temporary injunction, a temporary order entered under the Texas Family Code, a protective order, a standing order, or a hybrid containing relief derived from more than one source. Once Rule 683 applies, inclusion of the trial setting is mandatory, and omission of that setting provides an independent basis for dissolution without a decision on the substantive entitlement to relief.
~~45943f7d-e9b9-4945-a7c5-1a58c0eddd6c~~
Share this content: