438 S.W.3d 205
Tex. App.2014Background
- Nicholson sued Stauffer in Collin County Probate Court in 2012, individually and as successor trustee, challenging management of funds and the Anne Bodulus Stauffer Revocable Trust.
- Stauffer moved to a special appearance asserting no Texas residence, business, or contacts; Nicholson asserted Texas contacts via Stauffer’s involvement in Texas proceedings and the 2008 order’s enforcement clause.
- Anne Stauffer had filed a 2008 suit; the court’s 2008 order created an investment account with specified beneficiaries and a continuing jurisdiction clause to enforce the order.
- Anne died in 2011; Nicholson’s pleadings alleged funds were withdrawn from the investment account and amendments to the Trust, with various tort and fiduciary claims.
- The probate court denied in part Stauffer’s special appearance, holding it had jurisdiction to enforce the 2008 order for enforcement purposes and to adjudicate ancillary issues related to the investment account.
- The court later reversed in part, holding Stauffer was not amenable to Texas jurisdiction as successor trustee and that Nicholson’s remaining tort claims were outside probate court jurisdiction, prompting dismissal for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the continuing jurisdiction clause consents to Texas jurisdiction. | Nicholson argues the 2008 order’s retention of jurisdiction extends to enforcement of the order. | Stauffer contends the clause covers enforcement only, not broader claims. | No consent to Texas jurisdiction for Nicholson’s current claims. |
| Whether Stauffer is amenable to personal jurisdiction as successor trustee or individually. | Nicholson asserts jurisdiction based on the 2008 order and contacts in Texas. | Stauffer lacked Texas contacts as successor trustee; only personal signing in 2008 mattered. | Not amenable as successor trustee; no Texas contacts to confer jurisdiction. |
| Whether probate court had subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining tort claims. | Remaining claims are within Probate Court’s jurisdiction as actions involving a trust. | Remaining claims do not involve a trustee or inter vivos trust; outside probate jurisdiction. | Probate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; claims must be dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- RSR Corp. v. Siegmund, 309 S.W.3d 686 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (consent-to-jurisdiction clauses can obviate minimum contacts analysis)
- Moncrief Oil Int'l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013) (specific jurisdiction requires a substantial connection to the forum)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (contacts can support specific jurisdiction when related to the operative facts)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (forum-state contacts may suffice under due process when parties freely negotiate forum clauses)
- Ins. Co. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982) (consented forum provisions generally do not offend due process)
- CNOOC Se. Asia Ltd. v. Paladin Res. (SUNDA) Ltd., 222 S.W.3d 889 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (forum-selection clauses enforceable if reasonable and just)
- Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte)