CROSSOVER: No Record, No Reversal: Texas Temporary-Injunction Appeals Presume the Family-Court Evidence Supports the Order

Roel Guerra v. Maria Fabiola Guerra and Elma Guerra Chavez, 07-26-00364-CV, September 29, 2026.

On appeal from 229th District Court, Starr County, Texas

Synopsis

An appellant challenging a temporary injunction entered after an evidentiary hearing must provide the reporter’s record necessary to evaluate the challenge. When that record is absent, the appellate court presumes the evidence supports the injunction and the trial court’s findings, foreclosing reversal on complaints that depend on the omitted proceedings.

Relevance to Family Law

Temporary orders in divorce, conservatorship, possession, support, and marital-property cases are frequently entered after contested evidentiary hearings. Although many family-law temporary orders are not subject to interlocutory appeal—and therefore ordinarily must be challenged, if at all, by mandamus—the same record principle applies whenever appellate review turns on the evidence presented below: counsel must secure and file the complete hearing record or expect presumptions favoring the trial court’s ruling.

The issue is especially important when a family-law order contains injunctive relief concerning property transfers, business operations, trust distributions, account access, communications, or conduct affecting a child. If the injunction is independently appealable under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(4), the appellant cannot rely on the clerk’s record alone to attack evidentiary sufficiency, necessity, irreparable injury, or the trial court’s factual findings.

Family Law Crossover

The crossover rule is procedural: when a trial court grants a temporary injunction after considering testimony and exhibits, an appellant must bring forward the reporter’s record from that hearing. Without it, the court of appeals presumes the omitted evidence supports the injunction and its findings. That presumption can dispose of the appeal even when the appellant presents substantial briefing on the merits.

In a family-law matter, the rule may arise when a court restrains the transfer of community assets, limits access to a closely held business, preserves trust or partnership property, prohibits dissipation of funds, or enters other injunctive relief during a divorce or related fiduciary dispute. Practitioners must first determine whether the challenged ruling is an appealable temporary injunction under § 51.014(a)(4), a nonappealable temporary order under the Family Code, or an order reviewable only through mandamus. If an appellate remedy is available and the challenge depends on the evidentiary hearing, the record must accompany the proceeding.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The underlying litigation arose from a dispute among siblings concerning family entities and a trust created under their father’s will. Nicasio and Benita Guerra had formed a family limited partnership, NB Guerra, Ltd., and a separate cattle company. After Nicasio’s death, his will created a residuary trust, with Benita serving as trustee and Roel Guerra designated as successor trustee.

Following Benita’s death, Maria Fabiola Guerra sued Roel to compel a trust accounting. The district court entered an order compelling the accounting and later awarded attorney’s fees. Maria subsequently amended her pleadings to seek additional relief, including appointment of a receiver, winding up the family limited partnership, and a temporary injunction. The trial court entered both a temporary-injunction order and an order appointing a person to carry out the partnership’s winding up.

The temporary-injunction order recited that the trial court had conducted an evidentiary hearing over several dates and had considered pleadings, affidavits, exhibits, testimony, and counsel’s arguments. On appeal, however, Roel did not provide the reporter’s record from those proceedings. Correspondence from the court reporter showed that the master and exhibit volumes remained unpaid, and the transferor court had warned that it would consider only issues not requiring a reporter’s record.

Roel also argued that the earlier accounting and fee orders were final judgments that caused the district court’s plenary power to expire. Alternatively, he contended that the Starr County Court at Law had exclusive jurisdiction because related partnership and cattle-company interests appeared in Benita’s pending probate proceeding.

Issues Decided

Whether the appellant could successfully challenge the temporary injunction without providing the reporter’s record from the evidentiary hearing.
Whether the orders compelling a trust accounting and awarding attorney’s fees were final judgments that terminated the district court’s plenary power.
Whether the partnership winding-up order was final and appealable.
Whether the Starr County Court at Law had exclusive jurisdiction over the trust and related property because of a pending probate proceeding.
Whether the district court possessed jurisdiction over the trust, receivership, and partnership-winding-up claims.

Rules Applied

Interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction: Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(4) authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction.
Appellant’s responsibility for the record: The appellant bears the burden to request, pay for, and file a record sufficient to demonstrate reversible error. When material proceedings are omitted, complaints depending on those proceedings cannot support reversal. Aguero v. Aguero, 225 S.W.3d 236, 237 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, no pet.).
Presumption arising from an omitted reporter’s record: A reporter’s record is necessary to challenge a temporary injunction entered after an evidentiary hearing. Without that record, the appellate court presumes the evidence supports the order and its findings. In re Marriage of Spiegel, 6 S.W.3d 643, 646 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, no pet.); Prappas v. Entexami, No. 04-05-00886-CV, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 2157, at 3–4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 22, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.); Webb Consolid Independent School District v. Marshall, No. 24-0339, 2026 Tex. LEXIS 350, at 16 (Tex. Apr. 24, 2026).
Finality: Under Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001), an order rendered without a conventional trial on the merits is not final unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or clearly and unequivocally states that it does so.
Continuing plenary power: A trial court retains plenary power over the case until a final judgment is rendered. In re Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. 2020). A court also retains authority to enforce its judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 308.
Probate jurisdiction: A probate court’s jurisdiction attaches when an application to probate a will is filed and continues until the estate is closed. An inter vivos or nontestamentary trust interest is generally a nonprobate asset. See Texas Estates Code § 111.052(a)(1)(A).
District-court trust jurisdiction: Texas Property Code § 115.001 gives district courts jurisdiction over proceedings concerning trusts. District courts also possess jurisdiction over receivership and partnership-winding-up matters.
Transferred appeals: Because the appeal was transferred from the Fourth Court of Appeals to the Seventh Court of Appeals, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 41.3 required the transferee court to apply the transferor court’s precedent in the event of a conflict.

Application

The court first addressed the incomplete appellate record. The temporary-injunction order affirmatively showed that the trial court had received testimony, affidavits, exhibits, and other evidence during a hearing conducted over multiple dates. The appellant nevertheless failed to pay for and file the corresponding reporter’s record and exhibit volumes.

That omission prevented meaningful review of any contention dependent on what evidence the parties introduced or whether that evidence supported the injunction. Applying Spiegel and Marshall, the court presumed that the omitted evidence was sufficient to support the temporary injunction and the trial court’s findings. The appellant therefore could not obtain reversal of the injunction based on an evidentiary challenge.

The court then rejected the contention that the accounting and attorney’s-fee orders had become final judgments. Neither order contained clear finality language, and neither disposed of all pending claims and parties. The partnership-winding-up order was likewise interlocutory because it anticipated a future plan and required additional court orders before assets could be liquidated or transferred. Rather than ending a discrete proceeding, the order set the stage for further judicial action.

Because the earlier orders were not final, the district court had not lost plenary power. The premise underlying the appellant’s void-order argument therefore failed. The court also observed that a trial court retains authority to enforce its judgments even after plenary power otherwise expires.

Finally, the court held that the pending probate proceeding did not divest the district court of jurisdiction. Nicasio’s probate estate had closed in 2000, and the trust at issue was nontestamentary as to Benita and therefore outside her probate estate. The district court independently possessed jurisdiction over the trust proceeding, receivership request, and partnership-winding-up claims.

Holding

The court held that the appellant could not successfully challenge the temporary injunction without the reporter’s record from the evidentiary hearing. Because no record of the testimony and exhibits was presented, the court presumed that the evidence supported the injunction and its findings.

The court further held that the accounting order, attorney’s-fee order, and partnership-winding-up order were not final judgments. They lacked finality language, did not dispose of all pending claims, and, in the case of the winding-up order, contemplated additional proceedings. The district court therefore retained plenary power.

The court also held that the Starr County Court at Law did not have exclusive jurisdiction over the trust dispute. The relevant prior probate estate had closed, and the trust was a nonprobate asset as to the estate that remained pending.

Finally, the court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the trust, receivership, and partnership-winding-up proceedings. It affirmed the trial court’s orders.

Practical Application

The immediate appellate lesson is straightforward: order the reporter’s record before attempting to challenge a temporary injunction entered after an evidentiary hearing. A clerk’s record containing the pleadings and signed order does not permit review of whether the testimony and exhibits established a probable right to recovery, probable injury, imminent harm, or another fact-dependent element.

Family-law litigators should also distinguish among different categories of temporary relief. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from a qualifying temporary injunction, but Family Code provisions may prohibit interlocutory appeals from temporary orders in divorce or SAPCR proceedings. For example, temporary orders under Texas Family Code § 105.001 generally are not subject to interlocutory appeal. In those circumstances, mandamus may be the only potential avenue for immediate review, and an adequate record remains essential.

The distinction between legal and evidentiary complaints also matters. Some facial defects may be demonstrable from the order and clerk’s record, such as the absence of required specificity or a trial setting. But counsel should not assume that characterizing an issue as “legal” eliminates the need for the hearing transcript. If resolution requires the appellate court to know what evidence was admitted, what objections were made, or how an issue was presented, the reporter’s record is indispensable.

The opinion also reinforces the importance of a disciplined finality analysis. An accounting order, fee award, receivership ruling, or property-preservation order does not become final merely because it conclusively decides an immediate dispute. Counsel must determine whether the order actually disposes of all claims and parties, clearly states that it is final, or qualifies for interlocutory review under a statute.

In family-wealth disputes, probate jurisdiction should not be assumed merely because an asset appears on an estate inventory. Counsel should analyze ownership, the nature of the trust, whether the asset is probate or nonprobate property, whether the relevant estate remains open, and whether a separate statute assigns jurisdiction to the district court.

Checklists

Perfecting Review of a Temporary Injunction

[ ] Identify the precise order being challenged and its date of signature.
[ ] Determine whether the order is substantively a temporary injunction, regardless of its title.
[ ] Confirm whether Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(4) authorizes an interlocutory appeal.
[ ] Check whether a Family Code provision makes the particular temporary order nonappealable.
[ ] Calendar the accelerated-appeal deadline immediately.
[ ] Request the reporter’s record from every hearing date.
[ ] Request all exhibit volumes, including sealed or electronic exhibits.
[ ] Obtain written confirmation of the reporter’s estimated cost and payment deadline.
[ ] Pay or make acceptable payment arrangements without delay.
[ ] Verify that the appellate record contains every volume before the briefing deadline.

Building a Record for Appeal or Mandamus

[ ] Ensure that all material exhibits are formally offered and admitted.
[ ] Obtain express rulings on evidentiary objections.
[ ] Make an offer of proof for excluded evidence.
[ ] State legal and procedural objections with sufficient specificity.
[ ] Request findings when authorized and strategically useful.
[ ] Confirm that affidavits, inventories, business records, and financial statements appear in the clerk’s or reporter’s record.
[ ] Include all pleadings, motions, responses, and orders material to the challenged ruling.
[ ] If pursuing mandamus, prepare a properly authenticated appendix and record.
[ ] Do not assume that documents attached to a brief are part of the appellate record.

Evaluating Family-Law Temporary Relief

[ ] Separate ordinary temporary orders from independently appealable injunctive relief.
[ ] Determine whether the order regulates property, business interests, trust distributions, communications, possession, or conservatorship.
[ ] Identify the statutory source of the trial court’s authority.
[ ] Analyze whether an interlocutory appeal is prohibited by the Family Code.
[ ] If appeal is unavailable, evaluate mandamus standards, including adequacy of an ordinary appeal.
[ ] Determine whether each proposed issue is facial, procedural, jurisdictional, or evidence-dependent.
[ ] Obtain the complete hearing record even if the primary complaint is characterized as a legal issue.

Analyzing Finality and Plenary Power

[ ] Identify every live party and claim when the order was signed.
[ ] Determine whether the order actually disposes of all parties and claims.
[ ] Look for clear and unequivocal finality language.
[ ] Determine whether the order contemplates additional plans, accountings, sales, distributions, or judicial approvals.
[ ] Do not treat an attorney’s-fee award as establishing finality by itself.
[ ] Distinguish the court’s plenary power from its continuing power to enforce a judgment.
[ ] Identify any statute authorizing interlocutory review of a nonfinal order.

Assessing Probate, Trust, and Marital-Property Jurisdiction

[ ] Determine whether the disputed asset is probate or nonprobate property.
[ ] Identify the settlor, trustee, beneficiaries, and source of the trust property.
[ ] Confirm whether the relevant probate estate remains open.
[ ] Review inventories critically; listing an asset does not necessarily establish ownership or exclusive probate jurisdiction.
[ ] Examine Texas Property Code § 115.001 for district-court trust jurisdiction.
[ ] Analyze whether partnership, receivership, or winding-up statutes independently support district-court jurisdiction.
[ ] Consider whether parallel probate, trust, divorce, or business proceedings require a plea to the jurisdiction, plea in abatement, or transfer request.

Citation

Guerra v. Guerra, No. 07-26-00364-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept. 29, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

~~a3d47367-9586-48d9-a3e4-c3f89d667929~~

Share this content: