Dennis Eckel v. Ricco Family Partners, Ltd.
02-15-00253-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 19, 2015Background
- Ricco Family Partners (Texas LP) sued to quiet title after foreclosing on Lot 8R Block A in Denton County; Vista Ridge (a Texas LP) had been liable on the note.
- Christopher Hoskins and Dennis Eckel, Vista’s limited partners/officers, were initially named as parties of interest, answered with unconditional disclaimers, and did not file special appearances.
- Ricco alleges Hoskins and Eckel misrepresented that Zimba (a Texas entity) held a second lien, later arranged a renewal/transfer of the note to Maracom (a foreign corp doing business in Texas), and thus participated in a scheme to cloud Ricco’s title and create a purported $1M lien.
- Ricco’s amended petition pleads multiple Texas contacts by Hoskins and Eckel: contracting with Texas residents, signing a quitclaim, participating in foreclosure-related communications, and contracting with Maracom through Vista to modify the note.
- The trial court denied Hoskins and Eckel’s special appearances; Ricco appeals the denial and asks the appellate court to sustain Texas personal jurisdiction over them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas has specific personal jurisdiction over Hoskins and Eckel | Ricco: defendants purposefully availed themselves of Texas by contracting with Texas parties, making misrepresentations about Texas property, and taking actions (note renewal/transfers) that produced effects in Texas | Hoskins/Eckel: they denied committing any tort in Texas and challenged jurisdiction (argued contacts insufficient) | Trial court found jurisdiction proper; appellee urges affirmance (court relied on pleaded facts showing minimum contacts) |
| Whether Ricco’s pleadings suffice to invoke Texas long‑arm statute (§17.042) | Ricco: pleadings allege contracting with Texas residents and performance relating to Texas, satisfying statute | Defendants: contested jurisdiction; did not negate pleaded facts | Court treated Ricco’s factual allegations as sufficient to meet plaintiff’s initial burden; appellee contends defendants failed to negate jurisdictional bases |
| Whether the trial court’s factual findings and legal conclusions on denial of special appearance are supported | Ricco: findings supported by pleadings and evidence of contacts; defendants did not specifically deny many allegations | Defendants: argued conclusions legally incorrect and challenged sufficiency | Appellee argues conclusions are legally correct and supported; appellate review is de novo for law and for both legal/factual sufficiency of findings |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction would offend fair play and substantial justice | Ricco: defendants’ long history of Texas business and property dealings makes litigation in Texas reasonable | Defendants: claimed undue burden and lack of tortious acts in Texas | Appellee contends traditional notions of fair play are satisfied given defendants’ extensive Texas activities; trial court denied special appearance on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (plaintiff bears initial burden to plead facts invoking Texas long‑arm statute)
- Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013) (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment and a connection between forum contacts and the claim)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (contracting with Texas residents can satisfy long‑arm if contacts are purposeful and related to the claim)
- Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1992) (legal sufficiency standard: more than a scintilla of evidence required to support findings)
- Hotel Partners v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 847 S.W.2d 630 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993) (standards for reviewing special appearance denials and related findings)