Beaumont Court of Appeals holds pro se Plaintiff did not establish entitlement to injunctive relief to prevent demolition of building
Rema Charles Wolf v. City of Port Arthur, 09-19-00047-CV, (Tex. App – Beaumont, Aug. 6, 2020)
This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a temporary injunction request by a pro se property owner.
Pro se Plaintiff Wolf sued the City seeking a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction relief asserting the City failed to grant her a permit to repair a building she owns after Hurricane Harvey. According to Wolf, the building “was never hazardous for anybody[.]” The petition made claims against the City for fraud, harassment, and trespass, and sought damages. She also sought a restraining order to prevent the City from demolishing the building. The trial court granted the TRO and set the temporary injunction for a hearing. The City demolished the building. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting The City also alleged that § 214.0012 of the Texas Local Government Code provides the exclusive remedy and basis for judicial review of actions related to the City’s Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals. In a second plea, the City produced evidence of a public hearing on the demolition and that Wolf signed in and presented. After the public hearing, the Board entered a ninety-day raze-or-repair order and provided it to Wolf. According to the plea, the City sent Wolf a letter on October 25, 2018, that notified her of the upcoming demolition, demolition began on November 15, 2018, and the demolition was two-thirds completed when the City received notice of the TRO. After a temporary injunction hearing, the trial court denied the temporary relief and finding the plea was moot.
For a temporary injunction, a review of a trial court order is limited. In this case, several of Wolf’s issues on appeal complain about matters not within the scope of the order being appealed. The record includes no appealable ruling, order, or judgment granting or denying damages or some of the other relief requested by Wolf. As a result, the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over such requests. “An appeal from an order on a temporary injunction becomes moot when the act sought to be enjoined occurs.” In this case, the remainder of the building was demolished. The trial court expressly stated at the conclusion of the hearing that it had not found sufficient evidence of irreparable loss. Deferring to the trial court as fact finder, the court of appeals held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunctive relief.
If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Justices Kreger, Horton, and Johnson. Affirmed. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Johnson. Docket page with attorney information can be found here.