A legal dispute over a $1.5 million payment involving the City of Corpus Christi and Elevate QOF has taken another turn after a judge temporarily blocked the city from transferring the disputed funds.
The latest court order adds another layer to an already complicated legal battle involving the city, Elevate QOF, hotelier Ajit David and City Manager Peter Zanoni. With separate lawsuits and potentially conflicting court orders now in play, the $1.5 million payment appears likely to remain on hold while the courts determine what happens next.
Judge Blocks Corpus Christi $1.5M Payment
Judge Sandra Watts issued a temporary order preventing Corpus Christi and anyone acting on the city’s behalf, including city employees, from transferring, paying, allocating, or directing the disputed funds for Elevate QOF’s benefit.
The order came after David sought court intervention to prevent the payment from moving forward.
According to the court order, the judge found evidence that David and the city could face imminent and irreparable harm if the money were transferred before the underlying dispute is fully resolved.
As a result, the city cannot currently move the $1.5 million while the temporary restraining order remains in effect.
On Tuesday, the 105th District Court ordered Zanoni to release the $1.5 million settlement payment.
Those developments have created an unusual situation in which separate court proceedings appear to give the city competing directions.
Multiple Lawsuits Complicate Elevate Dispute
The legal battle surrounding the Elevate QOF incentive agreement is not new.
David’s lawsuit concerning the agreement dates back to 2024. Meanwhile, Elevate filed a separate lawsuit against Zanoni on Aug. 18, 2026.
With the cases moving through different courts, a central question is which court order ultimately controls the city’s actions.
Former district attorney and retired judge Carlos Valdez suggested that consolidation could become the next major legal step. Combining the cases could let one judge resolve the disputes and reduce conflicting rulings.
Until the courts provide further clarification, however, the competing orders could effectively prevent either side from immediately changing the status of the money.
For now, the $1.5 million remains with the city.
City Says Council Approval Is Required
The City of Corpus Christi issued a statement Wednesday explaining its position on the disputed payment.
City officials said Zanoni and city employees cannot direct the $1.5 million payment without council approval.
According to the city, the council has not approved the transfer.
The city also confirmed it will comply with the latest court order and will not make the payment unless it obtains the required authorization.
Officials said the temporary restraining order is scheduled to expire Sept. 2, 2026, unless the court extends it.
Temporary Injunction Hearing Set for September
A hearing regarding a temporary injunction is scheduled for Sept. 1 at 9 a.m.
That hearing could become an important next step in determining whether the restrictions on the disputed payment will continue beyond the temporary order.
Zanoni previously defended the decision not to transfer the money, citing the absence of City Council authorization and the city’s financial policies.
He maintained that withholding the payment represented responsible fiduciary management and said the decision was supported by advice from the city attorney and outside legal counsel.
What Happens to the $1.5 Million Now?
The immediate outcome is relatively clear despite the complicated legal proceedings: the money is not moving for now. However, the broader dispute remains unresolved. The courts may consolidate the lawsuits and clarify which order governs the city’s responsibilities. Meanwhile, the City Council’s authority over the proposed payment could also become an important part of the dispute. The Sept. The hearing may clarify whether temporary restrictions will remain and how the litigation will proceed. The $1.5M Corpus Christi payment remains frozen as all parties await further court action. The dispute remains developing, and additional court filings or rulings could change the situation.