In In re Garza, 126 S.W.3d 268 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding mand. denied), appellant argued that because "the temporary injunction failed to (1) set a trial setting pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 and (2) set bond pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 684, the temporary injunction was void." Id. at 270.
In response, appellee argued that Garza "waived her complaint by agreeing to the terms of the temporary injunction." Id. Specifically, the temporary injunction stated that the parties agreed to the terms of the order as evidenced by their signatures, which were prefaced by the phrase "Approved as to Form Only." Id.
Appellee argued that appellant was barred from complaining about the order on appeal relying on case law stating that "a party may not appeal from or attack a judgment to which he has agreed, absent allegation and proof of fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation." Id.
The court in Garza recognized that "a void order has no force or effect and confers no rights; it is a mere nullity." Id. at 271.
Thus, the court concluded, "a party who agrees to a void order has agreed to nothing." Id.
The court then undertook to determine whether the trial court's order granting the temporary injunction was "void" or merely "voidable." Id.