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:Appellees are Texas residents in the business of car sales. In January 2004, they placed an advertisement on eBay to sell a 1996 Dodge Ram pick-up truck. The auction ran until Feb. 1, 2004. During the auction, appellant e-mailed appellees inquiring as to whether the truck would “make the drive to Kansas.” On Jan. 30, 2004, appellant e-mailed appellees again and asked if they would be willing to end the auction early and deal directly with him for the sale of the vehicle. Appellees declined and continued the auction. Of the 57 bids received, appellant was the highest bidder. Appellant paid for the vehicle and arranged for it to be picked up and driven to Kansas. After the sale, appellant filed suit against appellees in the District Court of McPherson County, Kan. Appellees did not appear in the suit and appellant received a default judgment in the amount of $5,200. Appellant then sought to enforce the Kansas judgment in Texas and filed it in the trial court pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act and the requirements of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Appellees filed a Motion to Vacate the Judgment asserting the Kansas court lacked personal jurisdiction. At the hearing on the motion, appellees presented evidence that they never owned property in Kansas, did not have any bank accounts in Kansas, did not advertise in Kansas and did not have an office or an agent in Kansas. Approximately 1 percent of appellees’ sales are through eBay. The sale of this truck was the only transaction between the parties. The parties exchanged two e-mails before the auction and had one telephone conversation after the auction to set up payment for the truck. Appellant had a driver pick up the truck in Texas. Appellees mailed the title to the truck to appellant in Kansas. After the hearing, the trial court vacated the Kansas judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction. HOLDING:Affirmed. Internet use falls into three categories on a sliding scale for purposes of establishing personal jurisdiction. Reiff v. Roy, 115 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2003, pet. denied). At one end of the scale are Web sites clearly used for transacting business over the Internet, such as entering into contracts and knowing and repeated transmission of files of information, which may be sufficient to establish minimum contacts with a state. On the other end of the spectrum are passive Web sites that are used only for advertising over the Internet and are not sufficient to establish minimum contacts even though they are accessible to residents of a particular state. In the middle are interactive Web sites that allow the exchange of information between a potential customer and a host computer. Jurisdiction in cases involving interactive Web sites is determined by the degree of interaction. I & JC Corp. v. Helen of Troy L.P., 164 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2005, pet. denied). By filing an authenticated copy of the Kansas judgment in the Texas court, appellant presented his prima facie case for enforcement in Texas. The burden then shifted to appellees to prove why the Kansas judgment should not be given full faith and credit. Appellees asserted the Kansas court lacked personal jurisdiction. From the evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion to vacate, appellees’ contacts with Kansas were not continuous and systematic to give rise to general jurisdiction. This case would fall into the middle category of the sliding scale used to evaluate Internet usage for purposes of establishing jurisdiction since eBay would be characterized as an interactive Web site. Appellees had to register and list the truck on eBay before appellant could bid on it. However, appellees had no control over who would be the highest bidder. The court looks beyond the Internet activity to the degree of interaction between the parties. The record shows that the interaction between the parties was minimal. The e-mail correspondence between the parties relating to the single purchase was initiated by appellant. There was no evidence that appellees traveled to Kansas or engaged in other transactions with appellant or other Kansas residents either through the eBay service or otherwise. Although appellees did seek some benefit, advantage or profit by selling the truck to a Kansas resident, their contact with Kansas was random, isolated and fortuitous. The interaction between the parties did not rise to a level such that appellees should have reasonably foreseen that they would be haled into a Kansas court. The court concludes the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined the Kansas trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over appellees. Appellees did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Kansas to permit the trial court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them. Appellees established an exception to full faith and credit. OPINION:Mazzant, J.; Whittington, Wright and Mazzant, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.