Laura Bryan v. Debora Coelho Gordon and Windermere Real Estate/Lane County
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 8923
Tex. App.2012Background
- Bryan, a Texas resident, sued over a Oregon short-sale transaction and alleged appellees misrepresented and breached fiduciary duties.
- Bryan signed an Oregon listing agreement with Gordon/Windermere while in Texas; contract was emailed and signed by Bryan in Texas.
- The short sale occurred in Oregon; liens and mortgage were tied to Oregon properties and Oregon law governs the sale.
- Appellees allegedly contacted Bryan in Texas after a Titanium referral; Bryan claims the initial contact was uninterested and unsolicited.
- Bryan alleged fiduciary duties were breached during multiple telephone calls and email communications while Bryan was in Texas.
- Old Republic pursued the debt on the Oregon note; Bryan asserted claims including negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fiduciary breach, conspiracy, and RICO; the trial court granted the special appearance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether specific jurisdiction exists over Oregon agents. | Bryan argues contacts were purposeful and fiduciary relationship. | Gordon/Windermere contend no purposeful availment in Texas. | No specific jurisdiction; special appearance sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (long-arm jurisdiction requires applicable bases and due process)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. Supreme Court 1945) (minimum contacts and fair play)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (purposeful availment and targeted forum contacts)
- Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (phone contacts insufficient for jurisdiction; focus on defendant's forum-related activities)
- Peredo v. M. Holland Co., 310 S.W.3d 468 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (contract with Texas resident alone does not confer jurisdiction)
- Bergenholtz v. Cannata, 200 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (fiduciary relationship with Texas resident not sufficient for specific jurisdiction)
- Herbert v. Greater Gulf Coast Enterprises, Inc., 915 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (distinguishable from misappropriation claims; lacked Texas contacts)
- Riverside Exports, Inc. v. B.R. Crane & Equip., LLC, 362 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (treats email contacts with Texas resident as non-determinative for jurisdiction)