Background
Royal Holding Company is owned in equal parts by three siblings—Ross Patchin, Dominique Patchin Bauer, and Katrina Patchin Greiner—through testamentary trusts, with their mother Lisa Patchin serving as trustee. A dispute arose among the siblings concerning control of Royal and alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and self-dealing transactions.
Ross filed a verified application seeking a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction to prevent the sale of Terra Rosa Ranch (26,400 acres) owned by Royal Oil & Gas Corporation, a Royal subsidiary. Ross alleged that Katrina, Dominique, and Lisa were wrongfully usurping control, refusing access to books and records, and wasting assets. He claimed the ranch sale would generate approximately $2,000,000 in proceeds that would be misappropriated. Ross requested that either the sale be enjoined or, alternatively, that any sale proceeds be deposited into the court’s registry.
Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued an order on May 21, 2026, allowing the sale to proceed but requiring the net proceeds to be deposited into the court’s registry. The court ordered production of the closing statement to Ross. Royal then petitioned for a writ of mandamus.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ of mandamus and vacated the trial court’s order. The court held that the order was erroneous under either characterization. If construed as a temporary restraining order, it violated mandatory procedural requirements of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 680, 683, and 684 by failing to: (1) state the reasons for issuance and define the irreparable injury; (2) specify an expiration date and set a hearing on a temporary injunction; or (3) impose a bond. Such an order is void.
Alternatively, if construed as an order requiring deposit of disputed funds into the court’s registry, the order was erroneous because Ross presented no evidence that the sale proceeds were in danger of being lost or depleted. The court emphasized that while trial courts have inherent authority to order deposit of disputed funds in the registry when funds are in danger of dissipation, the party seeking such relief bears the burden of proving both that the funds are disputed and that they face actual danger of loss or depletion. Verified petitions and counsel’s arguments do not constitute competent evidence of this danger. The trial court therefore abused its discretion.
Key Takeaways
- Orders requiring deposit of funds into the court’s registry are not temporary restraining orders and are not subject to the same procedural requirements, but they still require evidentiary support that funds are in danger of being lost or depleted.
- A verified petition or counsel’s arguments—without supporting evidence presented at a hearing—are insufficient to justify an order requiring funds be placed in the court’s registry.
- Trial courts cannot circumvent the mandatory procedural requirements for temporary restraining orders by disguising such relief as a court registry order.
- Mandamus review is available for orders compelling deposit of funds into the court’s registry, as such orders are not appealable by interlocutory appeal and deprivation of the use of money causes irreparable harm.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies important procedural boundaries in Texas civil litigation. It reaffirms that while trial courts possess broad inherent authority to protect disputed funds by requiring deposit in the court’s registry, this authority is not unlimited and must be grounded in actual evidence of danger to those funds. The ruling prevents trial courts from using registry orders as a backdoor mechanism to achieve the effect of a temporary restraining order without complying with the mandatory procedural safeguards—particularly notice, findings of irreparable injury, and bonding requirements—that protect defendants’ due process rights.
The decision has particular significance for family business disputes and trust litigation, where parties often seek to freeze assets pending resolution of competing claims. The court’s insistence on evidentiary support rather than mere allegations signals that such protective orders require more than party assertions or counsel argument; they demand concrete factual showings that assets face genuine risk of dissipation or misappropriation.