Is a failure to make a forbearance payment sufficient to cause a temporary restraining order?

First, appellants argue the court should not have relied on their failure to make the February 10, 2010 payment on time because that payment was "not a part of this action." While the February 2010 payment might not have been part of the dispute when the complaint was filed in November 2009, it certainly became a part of the dispute when the trial court conditioned the temporary restraining order on appellants making their payments under the forbearance agreement on time. Because the very foundation of a court of equity is good conscience, "any . . . unconscientious conduct connected with the controver[s]y to which he is a party is sufficient justification for the court to close its doors to him . . . ." (DeGarmo v. Goldman (1942) 19 Cal.2d 755, 765, emphasis added.) Unquestionably the February forbearance payment is "connected with the controver[s]y" at issue in this case. (Ibid.)