Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Bell
549 S.W.3d 550
Tex.2018Background
- Lisa Bell (Texas) sold her house in Texas and transferred $202,574.88 of the proceeds to Robin Goldsmith (Louisiana); Old Republic (title insurer) paid that amount to satisfy a federal lien and sued under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (TUFTA).
- Old Republic alleged a multi‑year fraudulent scheme: Goldsmith made ~81 transfers to Bell, accepted the house sale proceeds knowing of the lien, and was an insider to shield assets from creditors.
- Bell and Goldsmith characterized earlier transfers as interest‑free loans between close friends; Goldsmith contended the house was Bell’s separate property so the federal lien never attached.
- Goldsmith filed a special appearance contesting Texas personal jurisdiction; the trial court granted it and the court of appeals affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court granted review.
- The parties stipulated facts; the sole legal question was whether Goldsmith’s contacts with Texas support specific or general jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas has specific jurisdiction over Goldsmith for TUFTA claim | Goldsmith purposefully availed herself: frequent calls with Bell, 81 money transfers totaling >$240k to Bell’s Texas account, liens on Texas vehicles, and acceptance of Texas sale proceeds | Goldsmith had no purposeful contacts with Texas: lived in LA, transfers were outgoing from LA to a friend’s account, phone calls were to a friend, liens were not her unilateral acts | No specific jurisdiction: contacts were random/attenuated and did not show benefit/availment of Texas laws or markets |
| Whether the Calder "effects" test permits jurisdiction | The harm (title insurer’s loss) was felt in Texas; Goldsmith knew the transfers affected Texas creditors, so effects test applies | Walden requires connection to the forum itself, not merely to a forum resident; Calder does not displace minimum‑contacts analysis | Calder/Calder‑style effects do not save jurisdiction here; contacts did not sufficiently connect Goldsmith to Texas itself |
| Whether general jurisdiction exists ("essentially at home") | Old Republic alleged continuous/systematic contacts (repeated transfers, communications, liens) | Goldsmith never lived in Texas, visited twice in ten years, and contacts arose solely from personal relationship with Bell | No general jurisdiction: contacts not continuous/systematic to render Goldsmith "at home" in Texas |
| Whether electronic receipt of Texas sale proceeds constitutes purposeful availment | Receiving proceeds drawn on Texas bank and knowing they originated from Texas real property supports jurisdiction | Receipt of fungible money drawn on a Texas bank is of negligible significance; transfers occurred in Louisiana and created no ongoing Texas ties | Receipt of money alone (without other purposeful Texas contacts) does not establish purposeful availment |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes minimum contacts due‑process standard)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general‑jurisdiction "at home" standard)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (effects test requires connection to forum, not just to forum resident)