Dawson v. James

656 S.W.3d 772

Jane DAWSON, Appellant,

v.Monty JAMES and Angela Sonnenschein; Accordia Life and Annuity Company, Appellees.

No. 08-21-00175-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso.

November 28, 2022

Mason Dunnam, Jim Dunnam, Andrea Mehta, Dunnam & Dunnam, LLP, Waco, for Appellant.

James Michael Young, Sanders, Motley, Young & Gallardo, Sherman, for Appellee James, Monty.

Jesse Linebaugh, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, Des Moines, IA, for Appellee Accordia Life and Annuity Company.

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.

OPINION

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice This interlocutory appeal follows the trial court's denial of a special appearance.¹ After their brother Scott James died, Monty James and Angela Sonnenschein sued Jane Dawson and Accordia Life and Annuity Company, alleging they are the proper beneficiaries of Scott's life insurance proceeds. Jane,² a California resident, filed a special appearance, which the district court denied. We reverse the trial court's order and render judgment dismissing all claims against Jane for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Factual Background

Jane has lived in California her whole life. After meeting in California in 1994, Jane and Scott dated on-and-off for approximately twenty-three years. Scott moved from California to Waco, Texas in 2014 to become an Associate Professor of Geosciences at Baylor University. He and Jane maintained their personal relationship long-distance, and in July 2016, Jane and Scott got married in California.

When Jane and Scott married, Jane was a fulltime student finishing her graduate degree at an Irvine, California satellite campus of Pepperdine University. The couple discussed Jane moving to Texas after her fall semester in December 2016, and Jane shipped several boxes of her belongings to Scott's home in Waco. However, after Jane visited Scott in Waco for less than one week following the wedding, the couple decided to get a divorce. Jane filed for divorce in California in October 2016, and the divorce was finalized in January 2018. Though the couple maintained an amicable relationship, Jane never returned to Texas.

Scott purchased a life insurance policy through Accordia in 2008. In 2014, Scott made Jane the primary beneficiary and designated Monty as his contingent beneficiary. In 2018, after Jane and Scott's divorce was finalized, Scott emailed his insurance agent, asking him to "[e]nsure [J]ane is not my beneficiary." Shortly after, Scott completed an Accordia beneficiary change request form and designated Angela and Monty as his two primary beneficiaries. Accordia then informed Scott the change could not be completed because Scott had not completely provided for 100% of the contingent proceeds, instead designating Monty as his 99% contingent beneficiary. Accordia requested he complete a new beneficiary designation form to correct the problem. However, Scott never did so, and on May 2, 2021, Scott died unexpectedly while visiting family in California.

Following Scott's death, Accordia sent Jane a letter to her home in California containing instructions for how to file a beneficiary claim for Scott's life insurance policy proceeds. Jane completed and returned the form to Accordia's Illinois address. Shortly after, Monty informed Accordia he was disputing the beneficiary designations under the policy. This suit followed.

Procedural Background

Monty, a California resident, and Angela, a South Dakota resident, sued Jane and Accordia, an Iowa corporation with its principal place of business in Iowa, in McLennan County on June 17, 2021. They requested declaratory relief that Scott's beneficiary designation—reflecting Jane as his primary life insurance beneficiary—was ineffective under Texas law and his earlier attempt to change his beneficiaries to Monty and Angela was instead effective. The petition stated Jane is a resident of Orange County, California and claimed the court had jurisdiction over Jane because "she was at one point designated a beneficiary of the subject life insurance policy and is a potential claimant to the policy proceeds," but it made no other allegations to support the district court's ability to exercise personal jurisdiction over her.

Jane responded by timely filing a special appearance. She appended to it an affidavit in which she testified she is not and has never been a Texas resident. She also stated she does not engage in business in Texas, has not committed a tort in Texas, has no place of business in Texas, and has no continuing and systematic contacts with Texas. Jane also affirmed she did not designate herself as the beneficiary of Scott's life insurance policy.

Accordia responded by filing its answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim in interpleader. In its counterclaim, Accordia requested the court accept deposit of the policy proceeds into the court's registry. However, at the time of the special appearance hearing, the court had not granted Accordia's request, and no funds have been interpleaded.

In response to Jane's special appearance, Monty and Angela amended their petition to include additional jurisdictional allegations about Jane. It stated:

Jane Dawson had [ ] minimum contact with the state of Texas as she married Scott James while he was a resident of Texas. She moved to Texas to live with Scott James from approximately July 2016 through approximately September 2016. Her specific contacts are in relation to the issues herein, as she married a Texas resident, moved to Texas to live with him, and is an apparent claimant to the proceeds of a life insurance policy owned by the Texas resident. Jane Dawson is ‘availing herself’ of Texas if she is indeed seeking the proceeds of a policy owned by a longtime Texas resident that she married.

Their first amended petition also added a breach of contract claim against Accordia based on Scott's 2018 attempt to change his beneficiary designations.

Jane then filed a first amended special appearance in which she reiterated her allegations from her original special appearance. Additionally, she responded to Monty and Angela's claim that she "moved to Texas" from July through September 2016, stating during this period she was a fulltime student, living in Laguna Niguel, California, and visited Texas for less than one week. Jane also contended during the "entire time" of her twenty-three year relationship with Scott, she resided in California, where they met, married, and divorced. Finally, she stated her extent of involvement with the life insurance policy was limited to receiving Accordia's letter with instructions on how to claim benefits, which she states she "filled out ... in California and mailed it from California back to Accordia in Illinois." Jane later filed additional documents produced by Accordia, including Scott's application for the life insurance policy and records of his past beneficiary designations, in support of her special appearance.

Monty and Angela responded to Jane's first amended special appearance, arguing Jane married a Texas resident, moved to Texas and was "briefly" a Texas resident, and is claiming proceeds from a deceased Texas resident's life insurance policy. They conceded "[t]here are no tort, contract or other affirmative claims for relief" against Jane but argued "[t]his case is unique" because Jane is a claimant who could "avoid suit simply by disclaiming any interest" in the policy proceeds. They also contended district courts " ‘always have quasi in rem jurisdiction to determine who owns funds tendered into the court's registry,’ " and Texas's "interest in resolving the controversy is overwhelming." Finally, Monty and Angela argued due process concerns are not implicated because federal statutory interpleader, see 28 U.S.C. § 2361 —though not at issue here—permits nationwide service of process and relaxes personal jurisdiction requirements. They contend because Texas law permits courts to "exercise personal jurisdiction[ ] as far as constitutional limits permit," the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Jane "as an interpleader claimant necessarily passes constitutional muster," and "Accordia's interpleader rights will be frustrated" otherwise. Their response appended Jane and Scott's divorce paperwork, several emails between Scott and various third parties, and a declaration from Monty. In response, Jane objected to Monty's affidavit because it contains inadmissible hearsay, is not based on Monty's personal knowledge, and contains statements that are not positive factual assertions.

On September 14, 2021, the district court held an evidentiary hearing on Jane's special appearance. Jane testified to the facts set forth in her special appearance affidavits and again stated she is not nor has she ever been a Texas resident. She also affirmed she never made any effort to change her voter registration, mailing address, or driver's license to Texas from California.

In argument, Monty and Angela's counsel conceded the "dispute as to whether or not Jane Dawson moved to Texas in July or was planning to move in later ... is irrelevant," and clarified "we're not arguing that Jane Dawson's five days in Texas are sufficient to confer jurisdiction over her." Instead, counsel contended the "only thing that's relevant is ... she [is] claiming the proceeds of an asset owned by a Texan," and "Scott James was a Texan." Monty and Angela's counsel again invoked the federal interpleader statute, though agreed it does not apply here.

The district court denied Jane's special appearance. Jane requested the court issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, although none appear in our record. Jane appealed.³

Standard of Review

We review a trial court's denial of a special appearance de novo. Fed. Corp., Inc. v. Truhlar , 632 S.W.3d 697, 716 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2021, pet. denied). Whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant is a legal question. BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand , 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. 2002).

...