Karen E. Landa v. Charles L. Farris
03-15-00497-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 21, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Charles Farris (Travis County, Texas resident) sued defendant Karen Landa (Iowa resident) for breach of contract and fraud arising from money Farris provided as a down payment for a house purchased in West Des Moines, Iowa in February 2011.
- Landa lived in Iowa at the time of the transaction; the house purchase, bank account, wire transfers, and closing all occurred in Iowa. Landa mailed closing documents from Iowa and lived in the Iowa house until sale in 2013.
- The parties briefly met in Dallas in December 2010 and discussed the possibility of Farris providing funds, but no written agreement or definite terms were executed in Texas.
- Landa’s post-transaction contacts with Texas were intermittent (a few visits 2012–2013, a temporary stay in 2013, a brief period selling insurance) and she returned to Iowa in 2014; she filed a special appearance challenging Texas personal jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied Landa’s special appearance; Landa appealed, arguing the court lacks (1) a pleaded basis under the Texas long-arm statute, (2) specific jurisdiction, and (3) general jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of pleadings under Texas long-arm statute | Farris alleged Landa conducted business with him in Austin and entered an agreement to loan money, supporting jurisdiction. | Farris’s petition lacks allegations that Landa committed a tort in Texas or conducted the transaction in Texas; operative facts occurred in Iowa. | Trial court erred in finding plaintiff met initial pleading burden (per appellant's argument). |
| Specific jurisdiction | Plaintiff relies on meetings in Texas and his performance in Texas (e.g., funding from Austin) to tie the dispute to Texas. | Landa’s contacts were insufficient: negotiation was preliminary, no meeting of the minds in Texas, and the contract’s performance and all operative facts were in Iowa. | Trial court’s exercise of specific jurisdiction is challenged as erroneous. |
| General jurisdiction | Plaintiff asserts Landa had continuous, systematic contacts with Travis County over 20+ years. | Landa’s contacts are limited, intermittent, and not comparable to being “at home” in Texas (domicile is Iowa). | Trial court’s general jurisdiction finding is challenged as erroneous under Daimler/Goodyear standards. |
| Remedy | N/A | N/A | Appellant asks reversal of order denying special appearance and dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing personal jurisdiction questions and interplay with due process)
- Kelly v. General Interior Constr. Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2010) (plaintiff bears initial pleading burden to allege long-arm contacts)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 132 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction requires defendant to be essentially at home in forum)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (limits on general jurisdiction for nonresident defendants)
- PHC-Minden, L.P. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 235 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2007) (Texas requires a higher threshold for general jurisdiction)
- Citrin Holdings, L.L.C. v. Minnis, 305 S.W.3d 269 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (specific jurisdiction found where defendant had repeated negotiations, documents drafted/signed, and contemplated Texas operations)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (specific jurisdiction requires substantial connection between forum contacts and litigation)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (definition of specific jurisdiction arising from forum contacts)
- Retamco Operating Inc. v. Republic Drilling, Inc., 278 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. 2009) (purposeful availment focus for specific jurisdiction)
- Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (limitations on using tort allegations alone to establish specific jurisdiction)
- CSR, Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. 1996) (general vs. specific jurisdiction distinction and higher threshold for general jurisdiction)