CROSSOVER: No Trial Date, No Valid Temporary Injunction: Monce Reinforces Rule 683 in Family-Law Crossover Disputes

Monce v. Majka, 13-25-00313-CV, October 28, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 of Nueces County, Texas

Synopsis

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 requires a temporary-injunction order to set the underlying claims for trial on the merits. Because the challenged order omitted that setting, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that the injunction did not satisfy Rule 683’s mandatory requirements and reversed the affected portion of the order with instructions that the defective injunction be dissolved.

Relevance to Family Law

Although Monce arose from a business-ownership and investment dispute, its procedural holding matters whenever a Texas family-law case includes a true temporary injunction governed by Rule 683. That can occur in divorces involving closely held entities, third-party property claims, fraudulent-transfer allegations, post-divorce enforcement proceedings, or related civil claims seeking to restrain transfers, expenditures, foreclosures, business decisions, or access to records.

Family-law litigators should distinguish a Rule 683 temporary injunction from temporary relief entered solely under the Texas Family Code. Statutory temporary orders may be governed by provisions such as Texas Family Code §§ 6.502 or 105.001, including their own procedures and limits on appellate review. But when the court grants a conventional temporary injunction on civil or crossover claims, Monce confirms that the written order itself must comply strictly with Rule 683—including the requirement that the underlying claims be set for trial on the merits.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The dispute concerned the ownership, governance, finances, and operations of IM Home Companies LLC and related entities. Christopher and Tressa Majka, together with Esplanade Investments, LLC, asserted claims against Ed Monce and several other defendants for fraud in the inducement, breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and related declaratory relief. They also sought access to company books and records under the Texas Business Organizations Code.

The pleadings alleged that Tressa Majka and Monce were managers and members of IM Home Companies and that the Majkas had made substantial investments and loans connected to the business. The Majkas further alleged that they had been denied meaningful access to financial information and excluded from operational decision-making.

The appellees sought temporary injunctive relief concerning company governance and financial controls. Among other things, their application requested restrictions addressing access to employees and financial records, expenditures exceeding $5,000, the use of company credit and debit cards, real-property transactions, and the encumbrance of company assets.

The trial court granted temporary injunctive relief. Monce pursued an interlocutory appeal, arguing that the injunction was procedurally defective because the order did not set the underlying claims for trial on the merits. He also challenged the evidentiary basis for injunctive relief and argued that the order improperly awarded the ultimate relief sought in the lawsuit.

The appellate court treated the omitted trial setting as a dispositive Rule 683 defect.

Issues Decided

The dispositive issue was whether a temporary-injunction order complies with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 when it fails to set the underlying claims for trial on the merits.

Monce also presented challenges concerning whether the applicants established the substantive elements for temporary injunctive relief and whether the order effectively awarded ultimate relief. The Rule 683 defect, however, required reversal and dissolution of the affected injunctive relief without regard to whether that relief might otherwise have been supportable on the merits.

Rules Applied

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 provides that every temporary-injunction order must:

• State the reasons for its issuance;
• Be specific in its terms;
• Describe in reasonable detail, without reference to the petition or another document, the acts restrained or required; and
• Set the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate relief sought.

The requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory. Texas precedent treats strict compliance as necessary because a temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that restrains conduct before the parties’ substantive rights have been finally adjudicated.

In InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Construction Co., 715 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1986), the Supreme Court of Texas held that a temporary-injunction order must include a trial setting and that failure to do so renders the order subject to dissolution. Likewise, Qwest Communications Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2000), confirms that an injunction failing to comply with Rule 683’s mandatory requirements is subject to being declared void and dissolved.

An interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction is authorized by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(4).

Application

The injunction in Monce regulated significant aspects of company governance and financial activity while the parties’ underlying claims remained pending. It therefore operated as temporary relief designed to preserve or control the parties’ positions until adjudication of the merits.

But the order did not perform one of Rule 683’s essential functions: it did not identify a date on which the underlying claims would be tried. That omission left the extraordinary interim restraint in place without the trial setting required to connect the temporary remedy to a prompt merits determination.

The appellate court applied Rule 683 strictly. The omission was not treated as a clerical irregularity, harmless drafting error, or matter that could be overlooked because the litigation otherwise remained active. Nor did the possible substantive justification for the injunction eliminate the need for a compliant written order. Because the order failed to set the matter for trial on the merits, the affected injunctive relief could not stand.

Holding

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that a temporary-injunction order that does not set the underlying claims for trial on the merits violates the mandatory requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683.

The court reversed the affected portion of the trial court’s order and required the defective temporary injunction to be dissolved. The case was remanded for further proceedings, leaving the parties to pursue any procedurally proper request for interim relief and the ultimate adjudication of their underlying claims.

Practical Application

In family-law litigation, Monce is most important when the requested relief crosses the line from an ordinary Family Code temporary order into a conventional civil temporary injunction. Counsel should identify the source of the court’s authority, the procedural vehicle being used, and the applicable appellate framework before drafting or challenging the order.

Common crossover settings include:

• A divorce involving ownership or management of a closely held business;
• A request to restrain a spouse or third party from transferring entity assets;
• Claims that marital assets were transferred to a trust, company, relative, or business associate;
• Litigation over access to partnership, corporate, or limited-liability-company records;
• A receivership or injunction sought to preserve a business pending characterization and division;
• A post-divorce dispute seeking to restrain a sale, foreclosure, distribution, or encumbrance;
• A SAPCR joined with tort, property, or declaratory claims requiring relief beyond ordinary conservatorship or possession orders.

When Rule 683 applies, obtaining a hearing date for the temporary injunction is not enough. The order must set the underlying claims for trial on the merits. The better practice is to place the merits-trial date directly in the injunction, rather than relying on a docket-control order, oral pronouncement, correspondence, or another document.

The party seeking relief should provide the trial court with a proposed order that contains every Rule 683 element. The responding party should preserve Rule 683 objections in the trial court when practicable, but should also recognize that Texas appellate courts generally treat the rule’s requirements as mandatory. A facial defect may support an accelerated interlocutory appeal under § 51.014(a)(4).

Counsel should also consider what happens after a defective injunction is dissolved. Dissolution does not necessarily adjudicate the merits or prevent a renewed application. If the evidence and pleadings otherwise support temporary relief, the applicant may seek a new injunction that complies with Rule 683. The strategic objective should therefore extend beyond identifying the drafting defect to preparing for a prompt rehearing on a corrected request.

Checklists

Drafting a Rule 683-Compliant Temporary Injunction

• Identify the legal and factual reasons for issuing the injunction.
• State those reasons in the order itself.
• Describe each prohibited or required act with reasonable specificity.
• Avoid incorporating the petition, hearing transcript, exhibits, or another order as a substitute for operative terms.
• Identify the parties and persons bound by the injunction.
• State the effective date and duration of the injunction.
• Include the required bond determination and bond amount, when applicable.
• Set the underlying claims for trial on the merits.
• State the merits-trial date directly in the injunction.
• Confirm that the trial setting concerns the ultimate relief, not merely another temporary hearing.
• Confirm that the order preserves the status quo rather than adjudicating the ultimate merits.
• Review the signed order immediately to ensure that the trial-setting language was not omitted or altered.

Evaluating an Adverse Temporary Injunction

• Determine whether the order is a Rule 683 temporary injunction or a statutory Family Code temporary order.
• Identify the statute or rule authorizing the relief.
• Check whether interlocutory appellate review is available.
• Confirm whether the order states specific reasons for issuance.
• Determine whether the order describes the restrained conduct in reasonable detail.
• Check for improper incorporation of external documents.
• Confirm whether the order sets the underlying claims for trial on the merits.
• Compare the temporary relief with the ultimate relief requested in the pleadings.
• Evaluate whether the order preserves the status quo or effectively resolves the dispute.
• Calendar the accelerated appellate deadlines immediately.
• Consider seeking clarification, modification, or dissolution in the trial court.
• Prepare for the possibility that the applicant will request a corrected injunction after dissolution.

Handling a Divorce With Business or Third-Party Claims

• Separate Family Code temporary-order requests from civil injunctive claims.
• Identify which parties are spouses and which are third parties or business entities.
• Determine whether the court has jurisdiction over the entities and assets at issue.
• Plead the underlying civil causes of action supporting injunctive relief.
• Tie each requested restriction to a pending claim for ultimate relief.
• Identify the status quo the injunction is intended to preserve.
• Prepare evidence of probable right, probable injury, and imminent harm when those traditional elements apply.
• Avoid using a temporary injunction to obtain a final determination of entity ownership or control.
• Coordinate the merits-trial setting with the court before presenting the proposed order.
• Ensure that any severance, consolidation, or transfer does not leave the injunction without a valid merits setting.

Preserving and Pursuing Appellate Relief

• Obtain a file-stamped copy of the signed order immediately.
• Verify the date the order was signed.
• Determine whether Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(4) authorizes an interlocutory appeal.
• Calculate the accelerated notice-of-appeal deadline.
• Request findings or a reporter’s record when strategically appropriate, without assuming those requests extend appellate deadlines.
• Identify facial Rule 683 defects separately from evidentiary and substantive challenges.
• Address whether the challenged provisions are severable from unaffected portions of the order.
• Request precise appellate relief, including reversal and dissolution of the defective injunction.
• Prepare simultaneously for proceedings on remand or a renewed temporary-injunction hearing.

Citation

Monce v. Majka, No. 13-25-00313-CV, slip op. (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Oct. 28, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion in Monce v. Majka

Family Law Crossover

Monce reinforces a procedural mechanism rather than a family-law-specific substantive rule. When a court issues a true temporary injunction governed by Rule 683, the injunction must be connected to an actual adjudication of the underlying claims by setting those claims for trial on the merits. The trial setting is part of the injunction’s validity, not merely a matter of docket administration.

That mechanism can arise in a divorce when the marital estate includes business entities, investment ventures, trusts, or assets held by third parties. For example, a spouse may seek to restrain the transfer of company property, limit extraordinary expenditures, preserve access to business records, or prevent the encumbrance of an asset while ownership and characterization claims remain pending. Similar issues can arise in post-divorce enforcement litigation or in proceedings involving related declaratory, fiduciary-duty, fraudulent-transfer, or property claims.

The critical first step is classification. If the order is entered solely as a statutory temporary order under the Texas Family Code, the governing statute may supply different requirements and may restrict interlocutory review. If the relief is a conventional temporary injunction on civil or crossover claims, Rule 683 applies, and the written order must include a merits-trial setting. Under Monce, omission of that setting requires dissolution of the defective injunctive relief, even when the case remains pending and the requested restrictions might otherwise be substantively supportable.

~~56cd9bfa-0d8d-4ce9-b9cc-8d57688bef93~~