Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
in Re: Stewart Phillip McCray
Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-13-01195-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; November 6, 2013; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas conditionally granted a writ of mandamus on November 7, 2013, in the case of Stewart Phillip McCray, who sought relief from a commitment order due to non-compliance with a temporary injunction. The Court found the temporary injunction issued by the trial court on March 7, 2013, to be void because it failed to either set a bond or dispense with the bond requirement, which are mandatory procedural requirements under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The relator, McCray, was held in contempt for allegedly violating this injunction, which restricted him from contacting school employees regarding matters not related to school issues. The Court emphasized that an order is void if it is beyond the court's authority or violates due process. It noted that the relator must demonstrate entitlement to the writ by proving the order's void status, not just that it is voidable. The Court highlighted that the rules require a trial setting and bond amount to be specified, and that a bond from a temporary restraining order does not automatically apply to a temporary injunction unless explicitly stated by the court. Real party in interest, Nikki Slaughter McCray, argued for the injunction's validity based on specific provisions in the Texas Family Code allowing for bond waivers in cases affecting parent-child relationships, but the Court found these provisions did not apply as the procedural requirements were not satisfied. Ultimately, the Court granted the writ of habeas corpus, releasing McCray from custody based on the void status of the injunction. In divorce cases under TEX R. CIV. P. 693a, courts may waive the requirement for a bond regarding ancillary injunctions between spouses. However, trial courts must explicitly address the bond issue; failing to do so renders any related injunction void, as established in In re Lemons. In the analyzed case, the temporary injunction did not specify a bond or dispense with one, leading to its invalidation. Consequently, the relator's challenge to the commitment order was upheld, as the commitment order included a finding of reasonable attorney’s fees amounting to $10,500, which also became void due to the void nature of the order. The relator was granted a writ of habeas corpus, released from a previously posted bond, and discharged from custody based on the invalid commitment order. The court did not consider other arguments presented by the relator due to the resolution of the sixth and seventh issues.