Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate court case, Hometown Bank, N.A. challenged two interlocutory orders from the 405th District Court in Galveston County involving a civil action by the City of Texas City against a property owner for ordinance violations. The Bank, holding a lien and assignment of rents on the property, attempted to intervene and sought to dissolve a temporary injunction against the property owner. The trial court struck the Bank's plea in intervention and denied its motion to dissolve the temporary injunction, prompting the Bank's appeal. The appellate court dismissed the appeal concerning the plea in intervention due to lack of jurisdiction, as interlocutory orders are only appealable when explicitly permitted by statute. However, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to dissolve the temporary injunction, noting the Bank's failure to present evidence of changed circumstances or procedural errors. The appellate court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, resulting in affirmation of the trial court's decisions. The Bank's attempt to consolidate its appeal with the property owner's separate appeal was also denied, and the panel of Justices Wise, Hassan, and Wilson confirmed the outcomes.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Jurisdiction over Interlocutory Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court lacks appellate jurisdiction over the appeal regarding the struck plea in intervention as interlocutory orders are only appealable when explicitly stated by statute.
Reasoning: The City has moved to dismiss this appeal, arguing that no statute permits such an interlocutory appeal, and the court agrees, citing that interlocutory orders are only appealable when explicitly stated by statute.
Motion to Dissolve Temporary Injunctionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A motion to dissolve a temporary injunction relies on demonstrating changed circumstances, which the Bank failed to provide, resulting in the trial court's decision being upheld.
Reasoning: In this case, the Bank did not provide new evidence to support its motion to dissolve the temporary injunction, nor did it claim any error in the trial court's process regarding notice or opportunity to present evidence.
Temporary Injunction and Appellate Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court confirmed jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to dissolve a temporary injunction under section 51.014(a)(4) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
Reasoning: Second, the court considers whether the trial court erred in denying the Bank’s motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. It confirms appellate jurisdiction exists under section 51.014(a)(4) for this issue.
Waiver of Complaints by Failure to Present Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: By failing to present new evidence or claim procedural error, the Bank waived complaints related to the dissolution of the temporary injunction.
Reasoning: Consequently, the Bank waived any complaints related to these issues. The trial court's denial of the motion to dissolve was upheld as there was no evidence of fundamental error or changed circumstances presented at the hearing on January 12, 2021.