James W. Trenz and Terrane Associates, Inc. v. Peter Paul Petroleum Company and Posse Energy, Ltd., 388 S.W.3d 796

Trenz, a nonresident of Texas, owns Terrane Associates, a Delaware corporation with principal place of business outside Texas.
ROC, a joint venture involving Trenz and Rupe Oil Company, operated Oklahoma wells for Peter Paul Petroleum and included a ten percent reversionary interest to ROC after payout.
Oklahoma litigation resolved disputes, awarding Trenz and Rupe each a one-half share of the ten percent reversionary interest.
Peter Paul filed a declaratory judgment in Texas about Trenz’s rights and obligations regarding the reversionary payout and a 1997 calculation agreement.
Trenz filed a Rule 120a special appearance; the trial court overruled it, and Trenz appealed via interlocutory review.
The court held Trenz waived his personal-jurisdiction challenge and that the local-action-doctrine argument fell outside the scope of the interlocutory appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Trenz waive personal jurisdiction challenge by noncompliant hearing sequence?	Trenz waived by obtaining non-jurisdictional hearings first.	Trenz complied with Rule 120a; implied denial of special appearance foreclosed waiver.	Waiver found; personal jurisdiction challenge overruled.
Whether the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is affected by the local-action doctrine.	Local-action doctrine controls adjudication of out-of-state real-property interests in Texas.	Doctrine not jurisdictional; Texas in personam action not barred by doctrine; appeal scope limited.	Local-action-doctrine challenge is outside the scope of 51.014(a)(7) interlocutory review.
Whether Trenz’s local-action challenge falls within §51.014(a)(7) interlocutory review.	Issue is properly before court as challenge to personal jurisdiction.	Local-action challenge is not within the express scope of §51.014(a)(7).	Not within §51.014(a)(7); appeal limited to denial of the special appearance.
Does Rule 120a require strict compliance and preclude waiver when other motions are heard before ruling?	Strict compliance evidenced by timely hearing requests and ruling on jurisdiction.	Hearing on other motions before ruling on special appearance constitutes waiver.	Strict compliance required; waiver occurred due to prior non-jurisdictional hearings.

Reata Const. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006) (personal jurisdiction can be waived by general appearance or failure to object timely)
First Oil PLC v. ATP Oil & Gas Corp., 264 S.W.3d 767 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (Rule 120a requires strict compliance; hearing sequence matters)
Klingenschmitt v. Weinstein, 342 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (waiver by obtaining non-jurisdictional relief before ruling on special appearance)
Milacron Inc. v. Performance Rail Tie, L.P., 262 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (strict compliance with Rule 120a; pre-ruling hearings can cause waiver)
Minucci v. Sogevalor, 14 S.W.3d 790 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000) (mere notice of hearing on related issues does not always waive special appearance)
Silbaugh v. Ramirez, 126 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (distinguishable; focus on whether motions were heard before ruling on special appearance)
Dawson-Austin v. Austin, 968 S.W.2d 319 (Tex. 1998) (special-appearance timing and waiver considerations)
Exito Elecs. Co. v. Trejo, 142 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (defining general appearance under Rule 120a)
Texas v. Smith, 219 S.W.2d 441 (Tex. 1949) (local-action considerations not applicable to this context)