Griffith v. Griffith
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 23
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Married in 1984 in Texas; moved to Florida in 1998; purchased family funeral home business in 2004; Martha has a Texas ranch via a trust and substantial oil/gas interests; Florida petition filed 2008, Texas petition filed 2009; Texas trial court denied Kenneth’s special appearance and later issued final divorce decree in 2009.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas had personal jurisdiction over Kenneth | Griffith asserts general jurisdiction due to extensive Texas contacts. | Griffith argues contacts are unilateral or not substantial. | General jurisdiction satisfied; Texas has power over Kenneth. |
| Whether Section 6.301 residency/domicle requirements were met | Martha domiciled in Texas six months prior and Medina County resident 90 days prior. | Kenneth claims lack of domicile/residency proof. | Trial court did not abuse; Martha met residency requirements. |
| Whether the plea in abatement should have stayed Texas proceedings | Florida proceeding first-filed; comity requires stay. | Pleadings show comity not mandatory; discretion to deny stay. | No abuse of discretion; comity does not compel stay. |
| Whether forum non conveniens dismissal/stay was proper | Texas proceedings should be stayed; Florida forum adequate. | Forum non conveniens not applicable; witnesses in Texas favored trial here. | No abuse; forum non conveniens not warranted. |
| Whether Texas court could divide Florida property or exercise partial jurisdiction | Court may divvy property and compel conveyance; in-state interests support it. | Lack of rem jurisdiction over out-of-state real estate; partial jurisdiction appropriate. | Court did not err in dividing Florida property; no partial jurisdiction needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Sup. Ct. 1945) (establishes minimum contacts for due process)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (purposeful availment standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Am. Type Culture Collection v. Coleman, 83 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. 2002) (pleading burden for jurisdictional allegations; long-arm scope)
- BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (minimum contacts and deference to trial-findings when none given)
- Guardian Royal Exch. Assur., Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (analysis of minimum contacts and fair play factors)
- Preussag Aktiengesellschaft v. Coleman, 16 S.W.3d 110 (Tex.App.-Houston 2000) (distinguishing general vs. specific jurisdiction)
- In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 192 S.W.3d 897 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review of abatement/comity)
- In re Sims, 88 S.W.3d 297 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002) (dominant jurisdiction/comity context)