CROSSOVER: Temporary Injunction Void Without Trial Setting: Rule 683 Crossover Matters in Family-Law TRO/TO Cases

Servello v. VillaSport LLC, 14-24-00776-CV, June 16, 2026.

On appeal from 434th Judicial District Court, Fort Bend County, Texas

Synopsis

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 requires a temporary injunction order to set the cause for trial on the merits in the order itself. In Servello, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed that requirement on its own and reversed and remanded the temporary injunction because the order did not include a trial setting, applying the rule that noncompliance with Rule 683 renders the injunction void.

Relevance to Family Law

This is a civil defamation and business-disparagement case, but the procedural holding translates directly into family-law injunction practice. In divorce, SAPCR, protective-order-adjacent litigation, property-preservation disputes, and cases involving non-disparagement or no-contact temporary injunctive relief, Rule 683 remains a live trap: if the temporary injunction order does not itself set the case for trial on the merits, the order is subject to reversal. For family-law litigators, that means the form of the injunction matters as much as the evidence supporting it.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

VillaSport LLC and VillaSport KT LLC sued former employee Anthony Tyler Servello for business disparagement, defamation, and injunctive relief. The opinion states that the trial court first signed a temporary restraining order and later signed a temporary injunction after finding that VillaSport had a probable right to relief on its claims. The temporary injunction specifically ordered Servello to remove a May 10, 2024 video from TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram.

Servello brought an interlocutory appeal from the temporary injunction and also appealed the denial of his TCPA motion to dismiss. As to the injunction, the appellate court identified a legal issue not raised by the parties in their pleadings or appellate briefing: whether the temporary injunction order was void because it did not set a trial date. That omission, rather than the underlying merits of the requested injunctive relief, drove the Rule 683 analysis discussed in the opinion snippet.

Issues Decided

• Whether Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 requires a temporary injunction order to set the cause for trial on the merits.
• Whether a temporary injunction that omits a trial setting is void and must be reversed.
• The opinion also states that the court affirmed the denial of Servello’s anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss, although the provided snippet does not include the court’s reasoning on that issue.

Rules Applied

The court relied on the following authorities and principles:

• Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683, which requires that once a court grants injunctive relief, the order itself must, among other things, state the reasons for its issuance and set the cause for trial on the merits.
• Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000), cited for the Rule 683 requirements.
• Conlin v. Haun, 419 S.W.3d 682, 686 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.), also cited for the same Rule 683 requirements.
• Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002) (op. on reh’g), for the proposition that a temporary injunction preserves the status quo pending trial on the merits.
• Abbott v. Anti-Defamation League Austin, Sw. & Texoma Regions, 610 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex. 2020) (per curiam), for the familiar elements required to obtain a temporary injunction.

The opinion states that Rule 683’s requirements are mandatory and, consistent with the holding identified in your case data, noncompliance renders the injunction void.

Application

The court’s Rule 683 analysis is a reminder that temporary-injunction review is not limited to the issues the parties choose to brief. The court expressly said it was addressing, on its own initiative, whether the order was void because it did not set a trial date. That is significant. Even where the trial court has heard evidence, entered findings supporting probable relief, and granted substantive injunctive terms, the order must still satisfy Rule 683’s formal requirements.

Here, the order omitted a trial setting. Under the authorities the court cited, Rule 683 requires the order itself to set the cause for trial on the merits. The defect was therefore not treated as a harmless drafting problem or something cured by the existence of ongoing litigation. The court applied the rule as written and as construed by Qwest, concluding that omission of a trial setting required reversal and remand of the temporary injunction.

For practitioners, the procedural story matters: the appellate court did not wait for a party to complain about the omission. The court identified the Rule 683 problem independently and enforced it. That is exactly why injunction drafting in family cases must be treated as appellate work at the trial level.

Holding

As to the temporary injunction, the court held that Rule 683 requires the temporary injunction order itself to set the cause for trial on the merits. Based on the authorities cited in the opinion and the case data provided, the court reversed and remanded the temporary injunction because the order omitted a trial setting.

The opinion also states that the court affirmed the denial of Servello’s motion to dismiss under the TCPA. Because the provided opinion snippet does not include that part of the court’s analysis, it is enough to say that the denial was affirmed.

Practical Application

For Texas family lawyers, Servello is a drafting and preservation case disguised as a commercial injunction appeal. The crossover point is straightforward: family courts regularly issue temporary restraining orders and temporary injunctions involving use of property, records, communications, digital accounts, access to children’s information, asset transfers, or conduct affecting the marital estate. If counsel seeks a temporary injunction beyond the TRO stage, the resulting order should be checked line by line for Rule 683 compliance.

In practice, the most important lesson is that a separate docket setting, an oral pronouncement, or a general understanding that the case will eventually be tried is not enough if the order itself does not set the cause for trial on the merits. Family-law litigators should assume that appellate courts may notice this issue even if the parties do not. That makes Rule 683 compliance part of both offensive and defensive injunction strategy.

A few recurring family-law settings where this issue can matter include:

• Temporary injunctions restricting transfer, concealment, or dissipation of marital assets
• Temporary orders with injunctive features concerning books, records, passwords, or business operations
• Injunctions addressing communications or publication of confidential family information
• Property-control injunctions in divorce cases involving closely held entities or real estate
• Temporary injunctive relief in custody-related litigation where a party seeks restraints beyond standard temporary orders

Checklists

Rule 683 Drafting Check

• Confirm that the temporary injunction order states the reasons for its issuance.
• Confirm that the temporary injunction order itself sets the cause for trial on the merits.
• Verify that the trial setting appears in the signed injunction order, not merely in a separate notice or docket entry.
• Review the order against the text of Rule 683 before submission and again before entry.
• Treat the injunction form as an appellate record document, not a routine trial-level form.

Family-Law Temporary Injunction Checklist

• Determine whether the requested relief is truly injunctive rather than merely a temporary-order provision.
• If injunctive relief is sought, prepare the proposed order with Rule 683 language included.
• Include a clear trial-on-the-merits setting in the proposed injunction order.
• Ensure the record supports the required temporary-injunction elements cited by the court.
• After signing, compare the entered order to the proposed order to confirm the trial setting was not omitted.

Appellate Attack Checklist

• Review the injunction order immediately for Rule 683 compliance.
• Check whether the order itself contains a trial-on-the-merits setting.
• If the setting is missing, evaluate interlocutory appeal options promptly.
• Raise Rule 683 defects even if the merits appear heavily disputed.
• Remember that the appellate court may address a Rule 683 defect regardless of the parties’ briefing.

Trial-Court Prevention Checklist

• Bring a proposed order to the injunction hearing that includes the trial setting.
• Ask the court on the record to include the trial-on-the-merits setting in the written order.
• Coordinate with the clerk and coordinator so the setting stated in the order is accurate.
• Do not assume a later scheduling order will cure an omitted Rule 683 setting.
• Re-read the signed order before leaving the courthouse or immediately upon receipt.

Citation

Servello v. VillaSport LLC, Nos. 14-24-00426-CV & 14-24-00776-CV, memorandum opinion filed June 16, 2026.

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

Family Law Crossover

The procedural mechanism here is Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683’s requirement that a temporary injunction order itself set the cause for trial on the merits. The court’s discussion shows that this is a mandatory component of a valid temporary injunction order and that omission of a trial setting requires reversal of the injunction. In family law, that rule can arise whenever a party seeks temporary injunctive relief in a divorce or SAPCR-related dispute—for example, to preserve property, restrain transfers, protect records, or restrict certain conduct pending final trial. The crossover lesson is simple: when family practitioners move from TRO practice to temporary-injunction practice, they must ensure the signed injunction order includes the merits trial setting in the order itself.

~~eca28526-0947-4783-8732-280d464a8ce7~~