Andrew H. Jackson v. John W. Jackson, Victoria Jackson Bannister, Melinda L. Jackson as of the Estate of Monroe Scott Jackson, II, Linda M. Welty, O.B. Jackson Jr., Gaines Bradford Jackson, Susan D. Hensley, and Marjorye M. Heldt
02-15-00102-CV
Tex. App.Sep 22, 2016Background
- Eight family members (three original plaintiffs and five intervenors) sued Andrew Jackson in Tarrant County alleging he negotiated and took an undisclosed bonus and overriding royalty on an oil-and-gas lease affecting family mineral interests.
- All eight plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel; John W. Jackson (John) was identified as a Tarrant County resident and attested he received misrepresentations from Andrew by telephone while in Tarrant County.
- Andrew moved to transfer venue to Midland County, asserting Midland was his residence, the lease negotiations occurred there, and witnesses/records were located there; he generally denied a fiduciary relationship and denied venue in Tarrant County but did not specifically deny contacting John in Tarrant County.
- Plaintiffs responded that Andrew made fraudulent statements to John while John was in Tarrant County and John then relayed the information to the other family members, making Tarrant County a proper venue for all plaintiffs.
- The trial court denied Andrew’s motion to transfer venue; Andrew appealed interlocutorily under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.003(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether seven of the eight plaintiffs independently established proper venue in Tarrant County under §15.003(a) | John’s affidavit shows misrepresentations were made to him in Tarrant County; other plaintiffs rely on John’s receipt-and-relay of those statements to establish venue | Venue improper for the seven because Andrew did not communicate directly with them; plaintiffs must independently establish venue | Held for plaintiffs: because Andrew did not specifically deny contacting John in Tarrant County and conceded venue as to John, John’s receipt of the call made Tarrant County a proper venue for the other plaintiffs as well (they independently established venue) |
| 2. Whether plaintiffs satisfied joinder/alternate venue criteria (§15.003(a)(1)–(4)) | Plaintiffs argued venue proper under §15.002(a)(1) and alternatively under joinder provisions | Andrew argued joinder provisions did not save venue for the other plaintiffs absent independent venue facts | Held: Moot — court resolved venue on independent-venue basis, so joinder analysis unnecessary |
| 3. Whether Midland County was proper venue and thus transfer warranted | Andrew argued Midland was his residence and the lease negotiation and evidence were there, making transfer appropriate | Plaintiffs argued Tarrant County was proper and plaintiffs’ choice of a proper forum prevails | Held for plaintiffs: Because Tarrant County was proper for plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ choice controls and transfer to Midland was denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (interlocutory appeals generally not allowed)
- GeoChem Tech. Corp. v. Verseckes, 962 S.W.2d 541 (Tex. 1998) (pleadings and proofs govern venue facts; when denied, prima facie proof required)
- Enserch Exploration, Inc. v. Star Tex Propane, Inc., 608 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. App.—Waco 1980) (telephone call to plaintiff’s county can establish venue there)
- Rogers v. B & R Dev., Inc., 523 S.W.2d 15 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1975) (similar rule: misrepresentations heard in forum county support venue)
- In re Masonite Corp., 997 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. 1999) (plaintiff’s proper choice of venue controls when venue is established)