WG&D Masonry, LLC v. Long Island's Finest Homes, LLC
10-16-00272-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 7, 2017Background
- WG&D Masonry (Texas) sued Long Island's Finest Homes (New York) in Texas for breach of contract and related claims arising from two short-term rental leases in New York and an allegedly wrongfully withheld security deposit.
- Long Island filed a special appearance to challenge personal jurisdiction; the trial court held a hearing, granted the special appearance, and dismissed WG&D's suit.
- WG&D requested findings of fact and conclusions of law; the trial court did not file them and WG&D appealed that omission as well as the jurisdictional ruling.
- Key factual disputes centered on the role of Barry Turk (who dealt directly with WG&D), whether Turk was Long Island’s agent, and whether Long Island itself engaged in purposeful contacts with Texas (emails, website, fax cover sheets, and some wire-transfer documents).
- Long Island submitted affidavits denying agency, denying Texas contacts, and stating it never contracted with or received funds from WG&D; Turk submitted an unsworn declaration admitting he handled the deposits and was an independent broker/agent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to findings of fact and conclusions of law | Trial court should have filed requested findings/conclusions; appeal should be abated or reversed | Rule 296 does not entitle party to findings absent a conventional trial; omission harmless | Denied — no entitlement because there was no conventional trial; no reversible error |
| Agency (Was Turk Long Island's agent?) | Turk acted for Long Island (listed on "team" page; used Long Island-related emails/fax cover sheets) | Turk was an independent contractor; Long Island did not control Turk; no contracts or payments in Long Island's name | Denied — court impliedly found no agency; lack of control defeats agency |
| Specific jurisdiction (contacts related to the suit) | Long Island negotiated leases, sent leases to Texas, received wires and communications related to the leases — so liability arises from forum contacts | Contacts were with Turk, not Long Island; Long Island denied soliciting or contracting with WG&D; any contacts were random/fortuitous | Denied — plaintiff failed to show Long Island purposefully availed itself; contacts attributed to Turk, not Long Island |
| General jurisdiction (continuous and systematic contacts) | Long Island advertised rentals to Texans and targeted Texas residents | Long Island had no office, employees, property, or continuous contacts in Texas | Denied — no continuous/systematic contacts; Long Island not "at home" in Texas |
Key Cases Cited
- Moncrief Oil Int'l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013) (de novo review and implication of facts when no findings are filed)
- Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2010) (framework for specific vs. general jurisdiction and focus on relationship among defendant, forum, and litigation)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (minimum contacts and due-process analysis for personal jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (established minimum contacts and fair play and substantial justice test)
- Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co., 278 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. 2009) (Texas long-arm statute construed to reach constitutional limits)
- Ikb Indus. v. Pro-Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1997) (Rule 296 findings of fact and conclusions of law entitlement limited to conventional trials)