X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Jeff Dandurand was employed by DHR International. He entered into an agreement with DHR in 1996 to purchase stock. Under the deal, in July 1997, Dandurand exercised his repurchase rights. He and DHR agreed upon a repurchase price, which was to be made in five annual payments. Dandurand claimed he received only four out of five of the expected payments. Dandurand sued DHR in 2002. Dandurand also sued Hoffmann and several other companies for breach of contract. Hoffman and one of those companies, Riverwalk International, filed special appearances, which included exhibits and an affidavit from Hoffmann. Though Dandurand admitted that Riverwalk’s special appearance “may be well taken,” he still claimed that Hoffmann had failed to negate all bases for jurisdiction. Without a hearing or a trial, the trial court overruled Hoffmann’s and Riverwalk’s special appearances. The two requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, and they, as well as Dandurand, filed their own proposed findings and conclusions. Finally, the trial court issued its findings and conclusions specifically with respect to Hoffmann’s special appearance. The findings of fact largely set out the facts as alleged in the petition. The court made two conclusions of law: 1. that Hoffmann had had some limited contacts with Texas relating to the underlying suit; and 2. that Hoffmann used his corporate authority at DHR to destroy or attempt to destroy Dandurand’s claims. A year later, the trial court vacated its order overruling the special appearance of Riverwalk and dismissed it from the lawsuit. The following week, the trial court then denied Hoffmann’s request for amended findings and conclusions. The trial court did not respond to a somewhat similar request from Dandurand. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. In general, the failure to make additional findings of fact and conclusions of law after a timely request requires reversal unless the record affirmatively shows the complaining party has not suffered injury. The court discovers that the trial court’s findings of fact do not address the issues raised by the special appearance or Hoffmann’s minimum contacts with Texas, but rather appear to reach the merits of the case. The trial court also made two conclusions of law, which resemble findings of fact, and are not supported by its findings of fact. The court points out that instead of covering the merits of the case, the trial court should have been deciding whether Hoffmann established minimum contacts with Texas, and whether personal jurisdiction over him would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. “Without deciding the merits of the trial court’s denial of Hoffmann’s special appearance, we conclude that the failure of the trial court to amend or make additional findings of fact and conclusions of law prevent adequate presentation of Hoffmann’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of his special appearance on appeal.” OPINION:Lang-Miers, J.; Moseley, Bridges and Lang-Miers, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.