### NUM BER 13-09- 0056 0-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
I N T H E G U AR D I AN S H I P O F AR M AN D O G AR C I A C AR D E N AS , AN

INC A PA CITA

TE D PER SON
On a p p ea l f ro m th e C o u n ty C o u rta t L aw N o . 1 of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d G arza M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez In t his ac cel erated int er loc utor y appeal, appel lan t, Ar mando Ga rc ia Jr ., chal len g es
v ar iou s o rd ers e ntered by the tria l co u rt i n proceed ing s i nv olv ing the g uardia nshi p of appel lee , Ar mando Ga rc ia Cardenas , an all eg edl y i n c a p a c i t ated person re si din g i n M ex ic o. By three i ss ues on appe al, appel lan t arg ues that the t ri al cour t er re d i n: (1 ) g ra nti ng app ellee’s spe cial app eara nce; (2) denying app ellant ’s motio n for contin uan ce to pe rmit addi ti onal di sc ov er

y reg ardin g personal j ur is dicti on; and ( 3) deny ing appel lan t’ s mot ion forA p p e l l a n t b r o u g h t a p a r a l l e l g u a r d i a n s h i p p r o c e e d i n g a g a i n s t a p p e l l e e ’ s w i f e , Ca r m e n De l Fi e r r o De 1 G ar ci a, seeki ng t o be nam ed hert em por ar y gua r di an a s wel l

. However , whi l e t he p ar al l el pr oceedi ng was pendi ng i n t hi s C our t , app el l ee’ s wi f e passed away , and, pur suant t o a m ot i on t o di sm i ss, t hi s C our t di sm i ssed th e p ro c e e d i n g a s m o o t. S e e In re D e l F ie r ro D e G a rc ia , N o. 13- 09- 00559
- C V, 2010 T ex. App. LEX I S 1612, a t *1 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti M a r. 4 , 2 0 1 0 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p .) (p e r c u ria m ).

I n hi s gua r di anshi p ap pl i cat i on, app el l ant al l eges th at hi s f at her suff er s f r om “ bl i ndness, cer ebr al 2 a tro p h y w i th re s u l ti n g d i s o rie n ta ti o n i n ti m e a n d l o c a ti o n , a n d c h ro n i c m y o c a rd i a l i s c h e m i a .” 2 s ub s ti tu te s er

v i c e on a pp el l ee a nd tw o ot he r i nt eres te d pa rti es
. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND On Au gust 11, 20 09, app ellantf iled an app lication t o a p p o int him self tem pora ry g uardia n of appel lee ’s person and es tate. Appell ant i s a ppel lee ’s so n. Appel lee , an 1 eig hty -fo u r-yea r- old mal e al leg edl y deal ing w it h v ar iou s p hy si cal and mental heal th illnesses, liv ed wi th his w ife, Carm en Del Fierro De Ga rcia, in Valle Hermo sa, T am aulipa s,

2 Mex ico and is a w ell-known agr icultural bu s in e s s m a n i n Mex ico. App ellantnote d in his guardian ship ap plication that , w hil e a p p ellee h as be en inca pacita ted , app ellee’s asse ts,
wo rt h in e xc e s s o f

$ 1 m i l l i o n , “h a ve u n la wf u ll y b e e n e xp ro p ri a t e d b y [ a p p e ll e e ’s ] two daug hters, Bl anca Est hel a Garci a D el Fi er ro and Ma rv eli a Garci a D el Fi er ro .” Ap pel lan t
re q uest ed th at he be n a me d a p p e l l e e ’ s t emporar y g uardia n to manag e appel lee ’s “ financi al affairs u nti l [he] re g ain s h is co mplet e mental facul ti es, to re cov er any as setw hic h has been improper ly

or i ll eg all y ex propr iat ed and to t a ke [appel lee ] i nto h is cu sto dy i n order to immedi atel y

ca re for hi[ m] and prov ide hi [m] w it h nec ess ar y protec ti on to ens ure hi s s afety and w elfare.” I n addi ti on to hi s g uardia nshi p appl ic ati on, appel lan t f il ed an appl ic ati on for injunct iv e relief , seekin g to en join the Del Fierro sisters f rom e x prop riating any of app ellee’s
re maini ng as set s a nd [from] i nter feri ng w it h the pos ses si on and care of appel lee

. Al so on Aug ust11, 2009, appel lan t f il ed req uest s to hav e the D el Fi er ro si ste rs andAccor di ng t o t he se r v i ce ci t at i ons, app el l ant bel i ev ed t hat t he Del Fi er r o s i s t ers , app el l ee, and 3 appel l ee’ s wi f e l i v ed t oget her at a house l ocat ed at 809 M or el os i n R ancho Vi ej o, C am er on Count y , T exas.

I n suppor t of

hi s r equest t o r e- set t he h ear i ng o n hi s gua r di anshi p ap pl i cat i on, app el l ant al l eged t hat 4 h e w a s u n a b l e to p ro p e rly s e rv e a p p e l l e e w i th n o ti c e
.

A pp el l ee su bs eq ue ntl y fi l ed a bri ef i n su pp ort of hi s s pe c i al ap pe ara nc e; att ac he d t o t he bri ef w ere 5 sev er al aff i dav i t s of

app el l ee’ s nei ghbor s i n M exi co an d exhi bi t s est abl i shi ng t hat app el l ee i s a M exi can v ot er and has a l way s r esi ded i n M exi co.

A ppel l ant execut ed an af f i dav i t w her ei n he asser t ed t hat w hen appel l ee vi si t ed t he Uni t ed St at es, 6 he d eposi t ed ca s h an d ot her asset s i nt o v ar i ous a ccount s at C hase and I BC ban k s l ocat ed i n Br ownsv i l l e, T exas, and t hat app el l ee o wned a com m uni t y pr oper t y i nt er est i n t he h ouse l ocat ed a t 809 M or el os i n Rancho Vi ej o. W i t h r espect t o t he h ouse, t he r ecor d con t ai ns a r epor t gen er at ed b y t he Cam er on Count y Appr ai sal D i s t ri c t , w hi c h i nd i c ates t ha t ap pe l l ee ’ s w i fe i s t he so l e o w ne r of t he ho us e. I t i s no t cl ea r f rom t he rec ord whet her app el l ee h as an owner shi p i nt er est i n t he h ouse. 3 app ellee se rv ed wi th proce ss. The citation s of serv ice for t h e D e l F ie rro sisters w ere 3
re tur ned w it h the notat ion thatnei ther i ndi v idu al coul d be found; therefore, nei ther of the sisters w ere prop erly

serv ed. In the m ean time , on Au gust 21, 20 09, the trial court appoi n ted Ruben H er re ra , an attor ney l ic ensed i n the Sta te of Tex as, as an a ttor ney ad li tem represent ing appel lee and setthe hear ing on t he dis p u te for Aug ust25, 2009. How ev er , pursuantto a req uest fil ed by ap p e lla n t, t he tr ial co urt re- setthe hear ing for September

9, 2009. 4 On August 28, 2 009 , atto rney Lilia A. Gon z ales f iled a specia l a ppe aran ce on b eha lf of appel lee , objec ti ng to the tr ial co urt’ s j ur is dicti on ov er appel lee ’s person and es tate. I n 5 thi s fil ing , G onz ale s a ss erted t hat s he represent ed Gu a d a lupe C ortezGonz ale z , an attor ney l ic ensed i n M ex ic o, w ho, i n tur n, re p re se n ted a ppel lee i n al l personal and leg al matters i n M ex ic o. Gonz ale s a ls o as ser ted t hat appel lee : (1 ) li v es in Me x ic o; ( 2) has nev er been a re si dent o f

o r d o m ici led i n Tex as; ( 3) has a B 1/B2 v is a, w hic h onl y al low s h im t o
v is it , notl iv e, i n the U nit ed St ates ; and (4) has not “d one any ac t or co mmitt ed any

deed to s ubmithi msel f . . . to the j ur is dicti on of thi s c our t.” 6Appel l ant r equest ed t hat ser v i ce on appel l ee b e au t hor i z ed b y l eav i ng a t r ue co py of t he ci t at i on a nd 7 pet i t i on wi t h an y one r esi di ng a t t he h ouse t hat i s ol der t han si xt een y ear s ol d orby at t achi ng a t r ue co py of th e c i ta ti o n a n d p e ti ti o n to th e fro n t d o o r o f th e h o u s e
. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 10 6(b ).

I n gr ant i ng appel l ee’ s speci al app ear ance, t he t r i al cour t st at ed t hat i t was di sm i ssi ng t he ca se f or 8 l ac k of j uri s di c t i on
. T he tr i al c ou rt di d n ot ex pl i c i t l y rul e o n a pp el l an t ’ s m oti on for su bs t i t uted se rvi c e; ho w eve r, th e p a r tie s a g r e e th a t, b y d is m is s in g th e c a s e f o r la c k o fj u r is d ic tio n , th e t r ia l c o u r t im p lic itly d e n ie d a p p e lla n t’s m o ti o n fo r s u b s ti tu te d s e rv i c e
. 4 On S eptember

2, 2009, appel lan t fil ed a moti on to su bst it ute ser v ic e for appe ll ee. 7 See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 106 . Amo ng the item s atta ched to this mo tion was an af f idavit
ex ecut ed by

C amero n C ounty

Sher iff’s D epar

tment Dep uty Refug io Perez Jr ., w ho av er re d that numerous attem p ts wer e made t o s er v e appel lee at the resi dence l ocat ed at809 Morelos in Ranch o Viejo, T exas. How ever, Depu ty Perez not ed that he spoke to neighbo rs
w ho to ld him that the h ouse w as alw ay s e mpty and that no one appeared to l iv e the re
. On S eptember

4, 2009, appel lan t notifie d the tri al cour t v ia a lett er

that he had not been ab le to s er

v e appel lee and re q uest ed an a d d it ion al forty -fiv e day s t o g et ap pel lee
ser v ed. In li g ht of

appell ant’ s req uestand appel lee ’s fil ing of his sp eci al appearance, the tr ial co urt s et t he hear ing on a ll pendi ng moti ons for Sep tember 15, 2009. On S eptember 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 , a p p e lla n t f ile d a ver if ie d m o t i o n t o co n ti n u e th e Se p te m b e r 15 , 2 0 0 9 he a rin g, re q uest ing thathe b e gi v en an addi ti onal sixty day s to ser

v e appell ee and inv est ig ate t he cl a i ms ma d e b y a p p e l l e e i n h i s s p e c i a l a p p e a ra n c e
. Th i s mo t i o n w a s d e n i e d , a n d the hear ing took

pl ace as sc hedul ed on September 15, 2009. At the hea ring, appellan t orally moved th e trial court to con tinue the case , butthis
re q uestw a s d e n ie d . After hear ing arg uments , t he tr ial co urt g ra nted appel lee ’s sp eci al app eara nce a nd d ismissed the case

. On Sept em ber 28 , 200 9, app ellantf iled a request 8 for findi ng s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law

. The tr ial co urt fil ed i ts findi ng s o f factandW e ne ed n ot add r ess ap pel l ant ’ s cont ent i on r egar di ng t he a ff i dav i t s beca use t he t est i m ony 9 cont ai ned t her ei n i s cum ul at i v e of ot her evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o whi ch no obj ect i on was m ade, nam el y t he s t atem ent s of

H er r er a, app el l ee’ s at t or ney ad l i t em , and t he n ot es con t ai ned i n t he se r v i ce ci t at i on a nd a ff i d a v i t e x e c u te d b y D e p u ty P e re z. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7 .1 ; see also R eliance St eel & Al um inum C o. v. S e v c ik , 2 6 7 S .W .3 d 8 6 7 , 8 7 3 ( T e x . 2 0 0 8 ) ( s ta tin g th a t th e a d m is s io n o r e x c lu s io n o f e v id e n c e is li k e ly ha rm l es s i f t he evi de nc e w as cu m ul ati ve o f ot he r evi de nc e i n t he rec ord ).

An Apost i l l e cer t i f i cat i on “ cer t i f i es t he a ut hent i ci t y of t he si gnat ur e, t he ca paci t y i n whi ch t he p er son 10 si gni ng t he d ocum ent has act ed, and i dent i f i es t he se al / st am p whi ch t he d ocum ent bea r s. ” Hope Andr ade, T ex. Sec’ y of

St at e W ebsi t e: Aut hent i cat i on o fD ocum ent s— Fre quent l y Ask ed Q uest i ons, ht t p: / / www . sos. st at e. t x. us/ aut hf aqs. sht m l ( l ast v i si t ed Ju ne 1 , 201 0)

. T he Apost i l l e cer t i f i cat i on was f i r st c re a te d b y th e 1 9 6 1 H a g u e C o n v e n ti o n , to w h i c h th e U n i te d S ta te s b e c a m e a s u b s c rib e r i n 1 9 8 1

. I d. T he c e rti fic a ti o n a l l o w s fo r th e ve rifi c a ti o n o f d o c u m e n ts fro m d i ff e re n t c o u n tri e s
. I d. 5 conc lus ion s o f law

on O cto ber

12, 2009. T his accel erated int er loc utor y appeal foll ow ed. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 51. 014( a) (7 ) (V er non 200 8) ; see a lsoT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 28. 1(a). II. S PE CI A L A P P E A RA NCE In his f ir st issue, ap pellan t argues tha t the trial court erred in grant ing appe llee’s spec ial appearance becau se: (1 ) the spec ial appearance did not all eg e facts thatdefeated “g eneral or

sp eci fic jur is dicti on” ; (2 ) the s peci al appearance is defecti v e; ( 3) the aff ida v it s re li ed upon by

appell ee cannot be used to su ppor t t he s peci al appearance becau se they
w e r e e x e c u t e d i n M e x i c o a n d p e r j u r y i n Te x a s d i d n o t a t t a c h ; a n d ( 4 ) a p p e l l e e fa i led to 9 compl y w it h the req uirements of Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 120a. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 120a. Appel lee as ser

ts that his bank

ac count s a nd hi s w ife ’s o wne rs hip i nteresti n the Cameron C ounty

hous e do not a mount t o “ subs tanti al act iv ity ” that w oul d s u bje ct him to the g eneral or spec ific jur is dicti on of t he Tex as cour t sy ste m, espec ial ly cons ide ri ng he h as li v ed i n M ex ic o his enti re life. Appel lee also cont ends thatappell ant’ s c omplai nt reg ardin g the aff ida v it s focuses sol ely on the fact that the aff ida v it s lac k an Apos ti ll e ce rt if icati on 10 and doe s n ot c hal len g e the fact t hat a ppel lee i s a resi dent of Mex ic o.6

A . Spec ial A ppeara nce and Pe rsonal Jurisdic tion The ex is tenc e of personal j ur is dicti on i s a q uest ion of law ; how ev er , t he proper ex er ci se of that j ur is dicti on must someti mes be preced ed bythe re sol uti on of under ly ing factual di sput es. See Goodenbour v. Goo denbour

, 64 S.W .3d 69, 75 (Tex. App.–Aust in 2 0 0 1 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Dai m ler -B enz Ak tienges ell

schaft v. Ol

son , 21 S.W .3d 7 07, 7 15 (Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2000, pet. di sm’ d w .o.j .) ). I n s uch ca ses , w e mustdete rmi ne th e app ropriate ness o f

the trial court’s resolu tion o f those disput es by an ordinary suff iciency of the ev ide nce re v iew bas ed on the e nti re record. Id. ( ci ti ng C on ne r v . Contica rriers & Term inals , In c. , 944 S.W .2d 405 , 411 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 199 7, no w rit))

. How ever, if the trial court’s order is based on un dispu t e d o r otherwi se esta blished facts, then w e c onduc t a de nov o rev iew of the o rd er
. Id. ; see Kelly v. Gen . Inte rior C onst r., Inc. , 301 S. W .3d 6 53, 6 57 ( Tex . 201 0) ; see a lso Mo ki M ac Ri ver Ex pediti ons v. Dr

ugg , 221 S.W .3d 569 , 574 (Tex. 2007 ); B M C S o f t wa r e B e l g
. , N

. V

. v . M a r chand , 83 S.W .3d 7 89, 794 ( Tex . 200 2)

. In rev iew ing a poi nt of er ro r chal len g ing the suffici ency of the e v ide nce suppo rt ing
a s peci al appearance o rd e r, w e mustco nsi der and w eig h al l of the ev ide nce, i ncl udi ng e vid e n c e t h a t t e n d s t o p ro ve t h e e xis t e n c e o f a vit a l fa c ta n d t h a twh ic h t e n d s t o d is p ro ve it s e x is tenc e. I d. (cit in g Am es v. Am es , 776 S.W .2d 1 54, 1 58- 59 ( Tex . 198 9) ; Cain v. Bain , 709 S.W .2d 175 , 176 (T ex. 19 86)). I n consid ering th e evidence, if a f inding is so contrary to t he gre a t weightand preponderance of the ev ide nce as to be mani festl y unj ust , t he f in d in g s h o u ld be s et as ide , reg ardle ss of w hether so me ev ide nce suppo rt s i t. Id. We
rev iew the legal conclu sions sup portin g the j udgmentto det ermin e w het her the y are correct7

as a matt er

of law

. Id. (cit in g Lawren ce v. Kohl , 853 S.W .2d 697, 69 9 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1s t D is t.] 1993, no w ri t) ); see Ke lly, 301 S.W .3d a t 660

. “A nonresi dent defendant i s s ubj ectto the p ersonal jur is dicti on of T ex as cour

ts if ( 1) the Tex as long -a rm stat ute author iz es the ex er ci se of jur is dicti on, a nd ( 2) the ex er ci se of jur is dic ti on does not v iol ate federal and s tate const it u ti onal due proces s g uarantees .” Kelly , 301 S.W .3d a t 657 (cit ing Schlob ohm v. Scha piro , 7 8 4 S

. W

. 2 d 3 5 5 , 3 5 6 (T e x. 1990) ); see T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 17. 041- .045 (V er non 200 8) ( codi fyi ng the Tex as lon g -a rm sta tute)

. “ Personal j ur is dicti on i s c onsi ste nt w it h due proces s ‘ w hen t he
nonresi dent defendant has es tabl is hed mi nim u m co ntac ts w it h the forum s tate, and the exercise of

ju risdiction com ports w ith traditio nal not ions of fair play and substa ntial justice .’” Id. (ci ti n g Int’

l Shoe Co. v. W

ashi ngton , 326 U.S. 310, 316 ( 1945) ; Mo ki M ac , 221 S.W .3d at 57 5)

. T h e p la in ti f

f be a rs t h e in it ia l b u rd e n of pl e a d in g “su f

f ici e n t a lle gat io n s t o bri n g a nonresi dent defendant w it hin the prov is ion s o f the l ong -a rm sta tute. ” BMC Sof tw are , 83 S.W .3d a t 793. How ev er , w hen a spec ial appearance is fil ed, t he nonresi dent defendant
a s s u me s t h e b u rd e n o f n e g a t i n g a l l b a s e s o f p e rs o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a s s e rt e d b y t h e p l a i n t i ff. Mo ki Mac , 221 S. W .3d a t 574 ; BMC Software , 83 S.W .3d a t 793 ; s e e E l P u e r to de Liv er pool , S.A. de C .V. v. Ser

vi Mundo Ll

anter o, S .A. de C .V. , 8 2 S

. W

. 3 d 6 2 2 , 6 2 8 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet. di sm’ d w .o.j .) . T h e tr ial co ur t det er mines the spec ial appearance by

referr ing to the p lea dings, a n y st ipu lat ion s made by and betw een t he par ti es, any aff ida v it s a nd attac hments fil ed by the par ti es, d iscov er

y , and any

oral tes ti mony
. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 120a( 3)

.8

A nonresi dent’ s foru m -state c ontac ts mayg iv e r is e to tw o bas es of pers onal jurisdiction, “gene ral” an d “specif ic.” Mo ki M ac , 221 S.W .3d a t 575

. General jur is dic ti on is es tabl is hed i f the nonresi dent has made “c onti nuous and sy ste mati c” co ntac ts w it h the forum, ev en i f the c ause of acti on does not ar is e f ro m o r re late to ac ti v it ies co nduct ed
w it hin T ex as. Id. Spec ificj ur is dicti on, w hic h i s a t i ss ue i n thi s c ase, ar is es w hen: ( 1) the defendant pur poseful ly av ail s i tse lf of c onduc ti ng act iv it ies in the forum sta te; and ( 2) the
caus e of act ion ar is es from or is re lat ed to thos e cont act s o r act iv it ies

. BMC Software , 83 S.W .3d at 79 5; see Bu rger King Corp. v. Rudzew icz , 471 U .S. 462, 474- 76 ( 1985)

. In deter mini ng w hether

a de fendant pur poseful ly av ail ed i tse lf of t he pr iv il eg e of cond uct ing act iv it ies i n Tex as: (1 ) onl y the defendant’ s conta cts w it h the for um are rele v ant, not t he uni lat eral act iv ity

of another party or a thi rd perso n; (2) the cont act s rel ied upon must be pur poseful rather

than random, fortui tous , or atten uated; and (3 ) the d efendant mus t s eek some b enefit, adv antag e, or profit by

av ail ing i tse lf of the j ur is dicti on. See Retamco Oper ati ng, Inc. v. R epubl

ic D ri ll ing C o. , 278 S.W .3d 3 33, 3 38- 39 ( Tex . 200 9) ; Mich ian a Easy Li vi n’ C ountr y, Inc . v . Holten , 168 S.W .3d 777, 784 (Tex . 200 5) ; see a lso Hanso n v. Denckla , 357 U.S. 235 , 253 (1958 ). “ T hus, in analyz ing minimu m con tacts fo r the purpo se of deter mini ng Tex as cour ts’ speci fic jur is dicti on, w e focus on the rela ti onshi p among the def end a n t , t h e forum , and the litigation.” Goodenb our , 64 S.W .3d a t 79 (c it ing Televentur

es, Inc. v. Int’

l Gam e T

ech. , 12 S.W .3d 900, 907 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2000, pet. den ied)). B. Guardia nship Proce edings The onl y pur pose of a g uardia nshi p proceed ing i s t o appoi nt a g uardia n w it h ei ther9

full or l imi ted a uthor ity

ov er an i ncapa ci tated person. See T EX
. P ROB
. C ODE A NN
. § 602 ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 3 ) ; se e a lso I n r e M il ler , 299 S.W .3d 1 79, 1 85 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2009, no pet.)

. “A g uardia nshi p is nei ther neces sar y nor appropr iat e w hen a person is found to be
c om pe te nt.” In r

e M il ler , 299 S.W .3d a t 185

. If the t ri al jud g e had found appel lee to be inc apaci tated , t hen t he appropr iat e c ourse of acti on w oul d hav e been to ap poi nt a g uardia n
w it h full or

l imi ted a uthor ity

ov er hi m. Id. ( cit in g T EX
. P ROB
. C OD E A NN
. § 60 2). “A
conc lus ion thatno g uardian i s n e e d e d i s a dete rmi nati on th at t he propose d w ard has suffici ent c apaci ty

to care fo r h imself. Such a c oncl usi on i s, in eff ect , a findi ng thatthe perso n is co mp ete nt, and it is a n express d enia l o f a reque st to form a g uard iansh ip.” Id. C
. W h e t h e r

A p p e l l e e ’ s S p e c i a l A p p e a r a n c e W a s D e fe c t i ve At t he out setof our anal y si s of this i ss ue, w e w il l address appel lan t’ s c ontent ion that app ellee’s spe cial app eara nce was “ d e f e c t ive .” Appellan t asserts th at: (1) app ellee d id notperson a ll y

ente r the spe cial app eara nce; and (2) Gonzalez , app ellee’s at torne y in Mex ico , h ired Gon z ales, a ppe llee’s atto rney i n T exas, to represe nt ap pellee und er a Me x ic an pow er

of attor ney , w hic h has no author ity i n the U nit ed St ates bec ause itdoes not hav e the req uis it e Apos ti ll e c erti ficat ion and does not e x press lyst ate t hat G onz ale zhas the power to repre sentapp ellee o utside of Mexico. A ppe llant also argues tha t the failure of Gonzales, appellee ’s atto rney in T exas, to sw ear to th e spe cial app eara nce a lso rende rs the special ap pea rance “defective.” See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 120 a(1) (“Such s pe c i al app eara nce shal l be made by

sw or n moti on fil ed pr ior to moti on to transfer

v enue or a n y o th e r ple a, ple adi ng or

moti on .
. . .” ). Here, G onza le z, appel lee ’s att or ney i n M ex ic o, s w ore to the s peci al appearance.10

It is undisp ute d tha t Gon z ales, app ellee’s at torne y in Te x as, is licensed to practice law in T e xas w h ile Go n zale z, ap p e lle e ’s a tt o rn e y in Me xico , is no t. In a n y even t, th e la n gua ge cont ain ed i n the sp eci al appearance ind ic ates that appel lee hi re d Gon z ale zto re present h im in le gal m a tt e rs in M e xico a n d t h a t, i n o rd e r to ch a lle n ge t h e gua rd ia n sh ip pro ce e d in gs broug ht by

appel lan t, Gonz ale z w as re q uired to cont ra ct w it h an attor ney l ic ensed i n Tex as to represent appel lee

. H er re ra , app ell ee’ s a ttor ney ad l it em, c onfir med thi s a rrang ement at t he Sep tember

15, 2009 he ar ing

. The record does not cont ain any obj ect ion fil ed by appel lee co ntes ti ng Gonz ale s’ s represent ati on of hi m in thes e proceed ing s. Appel lan t does not ci te, and w e are notaw are of, aut hor ity thatsu ppor

ts his co ntent ion thatthe spec ial appearance w as “de fecti v e” bec ause Gonz ale s represent ed appe ll ee i n the Tex as c ou rt s y s te m. W it h respec t t o hi s a rg ument t hat G onz ale z ’s aff ida v itdi d n o t sa ti sfythe requireme nts of

rule 120 a, ap p e lla nt cites Om nip lan , Inc. v. New Am er ic a D evel

opm ent Cor por ati on
. See 523 S.W .2d 301 , 304 -05 (Te x . Civ . App .–W a c o 1 9 7 5 , no wr it). How ev er , w e do not bel iev e that thi s cas e suppo rt s appel lan t’ s posi ti on. In Om nip lan , t he W aco Cou rt of

Appe als held thatan af f idavit satisf ies the requirem ent s of rule 120 a if

it is “ int ended ‘ to un re ser v edl y sw e a r to the al leg ati ons cont ain ed [w it hin the spec ial
a p p e a ra n c e ]

. ’” Id. at30 4 (cit in g A.H . Be lo Cor p. v . Bl anton , 1 3 3 T e x . 3 9 1 , 1 2 9 S

. W .2d 619, 623 ( 1939) ). H ere, G onz alez, a p p ell ee’ s a ttor ney i n M ex ic o, ex ecut ed a notar iz ed aff ida v itst ati ng thatal l of the all eg ati ons made in the sp eci al appearance w ere “ tr ue and
cor re ct” and that the all eg ati ons w ere “ w it hin hi s p ersonal kn ow led g e.” C lea rl y , G onz ale z int ended t o s w ear

to the a ll eg ati ons made i n the sp eci al ap pearance. See i d.11

Fur ther more, the re cord does not re flectthatappel lan t fil ed a spec ial ex cept ion to the all eg ed defe ct i n G o nz ale z ’s aff ida v it

. See i d. (n oti ng thata fail ure to file a s peci al
ex cept ion to an al leg ed defect in an aff ida v it suppo rt ing a spec ial appearance cons ti tutes
w aiv er of the i ss ue and canno t be ra is ed for the firs t ti me on ap peal ); see a lsoT EX
. R. C IV
. P. 90. Base d on the for eg oin g , w e do not f ind appell ant’ s arg uments to be persuas iv e, an d
w e find that appel lee ’s sp eci al appearance w as eff ect iv e and compl ied w it h Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 120a. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 120a. D. Spec ific Juris diction Appel lan t c onced ed, a t t he September 15, 2009 he ar ing , t hat Tex as cour ts do not h a ve ge n e ra l j u ri s d ic t io n o ve r ap p e ll e e a n d s t a t e d t h a t “s p e c if ic ju ri s d ic t io n is wh a t we h a ve alleged.” T hus, our analysi s w ill focus on the requireme nts fo r esta blishin g s p e c if ic jur is dic ti on. Appel lan t t est ified thatthe basi s o f the tri al cour t’ s s peci fic j ur is dicti on ov er appel lee is appel lee ’s C hase and I BC bank ac count s o pened in Brow nsv il le and t he hous e ow ned by app ellee’s w ife. App ellantalso not es tha t app ellee h a s f a il e d t o prese nt evidence sugge sting thatthe ex er ci se of pers onal j ur is dicti on by the Tex as cour

t s y ste m fail s t o compor t w it h fair pl ay and subs tanti al jus ti ce. Her re ra , app ell ee’ s a ttor ney ad li tem, informed the tr ial courtthat he had spoke n to appel lee and deter mine d tha t app ell ee w as compet ent. See In r e M il ler , 299 S.W .3d a t 1 8 7 (cit in g T EX
. P ROB
. C OD E A NN
. § 692 (V er non 200 3) ( re q uir ing the pr o bate cour t t o dis mis s an appli cat ion for g uardia nshi p w hen an adul t person is found to poss ess ca paci ty12

to c ar e for hims elf and manag e hi s p ro per ty )) . He rrera noted that appel lee i s a resi dent of Mex ic o and had l iv ed th ere al l of his l ife and that he “ did n’tw a n t to b e su bje ct to t he [Tex as] co urt’ s j ur is dicti on.” The t ri al cour t s tated that : That’s a do g fig ht i n anot her co untr y , es p e cially

i f they al l li v e ov er

there. There’ s moni es ov er

here tha t bel ong to mom and dad , notto mij o.

. . . . E ve ryb o d yt h a t ’ s b e e n t h e re [ t h e h o u s e lo c a t e d in Ca m e ro n Co u n t y] sa ys nobody l iv es there; nobody

has ev er l iv ed th ere. It maybe t hei r proper ty , but there’s thou sands and thous ands of res ide nts from M ex ic o w ho hav e homes ov er here, w ho c ome for a day and g o bac k t o M ex ic o.

. . . . From ev er

ythi ng I’ v e s een here, t hese f o lks l iv e i n M ex ic o. I’ m not g oin g to g iv e the m ju ri sdi cti on to co me ov er here and fig ht for

so methi ng that they sh oul d be fig hti ng i n M ex ic o.

. . . . Now , i f I get any

diff erent informat ion , other than theyhav e a b ank acc ount here w it h tw o poi nt s omethi ng m il li on doll ars that loo ks l ik e ev er y body w ants to fig ht ov er , y ou k now , t hat’ s t hei r probl em i n M ex ic o. They ’v e g ot jurisdiction there. I’m not going to drag the se peo ple from Valle H e rm osa ov er here to the U nit ed St ates on my co urt order

to fig ure out , number

one, w hether they ’re c ompetentto be abl e to hav e a g uardia n, w hic h tw o g uardia n ad l it ems t hat I appoi nted w ent a nd talk e d to them and ac tual ly tal ked to them, from thei r sta tements here, and s eem to be c ompetent , number one, w hic h i s n ot an i ss ue atthi s p oin t.

. . . . W hoev er

has g uardia nshi p ov er the peopl e, they can do w hatev er they w ant w ith the prope rty , beca use th ey’v e got the a uth ority . But m ij o s o n doe sn’t have guardiansh ip over mo m an d da d in Mex ico. He’s not going to g et it here , beca use we don’t ha v e jurisdiction o v er these folks. The tr ial co urt s ubseq uentl y i ss ued findi ng s of fact and conc lus ion s o f law reflect ing13

the a bov e- menti oned s tatement s. In i ts f in d ing s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law , t he tr ial court no ted thatapp ellee is a resid ento f V alle Hermo sa and a regi stered Mex ican voter, and hel d a B 1/B2 v is a tha t di d not all ow him to re si de in the Uni ted Stat es on a per manent basi s. The tr ial cour

t further noted that the ev ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t to est abl is h the t ri al
cour t’ s j ur is dicti on in thi s matter and that, in a g uardia nshi p proceed ing , t he tr ial co urt w as
re q uired to obta in jur is dicti on ov er appel lee ’s person before p ro ceedi ng
. Mo re ov er , t he tr ial
cour t s tated thatappel lee w as domic il ed i n M ex ic o and that, l ik e manyo th e r Me x ic an nati onal s, did not re si de i n the C amero n C ounty home on a pe rmane nt ba si s. Appel lan t’ s g uardia nshi p appl ic ati on s oug ht t o appoi nt ap pel lan t as g uardia n of app ellee’s pe rson and esta te becau se app ellee’s health prob lem s allegedly rend ered him inc apaci tated

. It appears that appel lan t soug ht to manag e appel lee ’s entire es tate, inc lud ing proper

ti es and as set s l ocat ed i n M ex ic o, as a resul t of appel lee ’s al leg ed inc apaci tati on. In suppo rt of his appl ic ati on, a ppel lan t prov ide d s ev eral re por ts g enerated by doct ors in Me x ic o outl ini ng appel lee ’s v ar iou s maladi es. For appel lan t to be named
a p p e ll e e ’s gu a rd ia n a n d p ro t e c t o r o f h is e s t a t e , it wa s n e c e s s a ry fo r th e t ri a l co u rtt o h a ve deter mined that appel lee i s i ncapa ci tated

. See T EX
. P ROB
. C OD E A NN
. § 602; see als o In
re M il ler , 299 S.W .3d a t 185

. How ev er , before the tr ial co urt c oul d reach the i ncapa ci tati on is sue, it w as neces sar

y for t he tr ial co urt t o es tabl is h j ur is dicti on ov er appel lee ’s person. See In r e M il ler , 299 S.W .3d a t 185 ; see als o In re Par ker , 2 7 5 S

. W

. 3 d 6 2 3 , 6 2 7 -6 2 8 (T e x. App.–A mari ll o 2008, no p et.) ; Or ti z v. Gut ier re z , 7 9 2 S. W .2d 1 18, 1 19 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant onio 198 9, w rit denied ) ( hold ing pe rsona l se rv ice requireme nt und er t he guardia nship statu tes is jurisdictiona l, and therefore, th e trial court prop erly dismissed the guardia nship14

proce edin g w hen the pro pose d w ard ha d notbee n pe rsona lly serv ed); In re B.A .G. , 794 S.W .2d 510 , 513 (Tex. App. –Corpu s C h ri s ti 199 0, no w rit) (holdin g tha t an alleged ly incap acitat ed p erson mustmake a person al app eara nce “because tha t perso n’s rig hts are bei ng l imi ted, ev en i f for a s hor t per iod of ti me”) ; Redmon v. Lea ch , 130 S.W .2d 8 73, 8 74- 78 (T ex. C iv . App .–Dallas 1 939 , w rit dism’d judgm ’t cor.) ( dism issing a guardian ship case for l ack of jur is dicti on w here the w ard was a resi dent of Okl ahoma, w as not o f unsound mind, and had notbeen ser v ed w it h personal noti ce)

. Here, ap pel lan t admi tted that appell ee l iv es, and has alw ay s l iv ed, i n M ex ic o. Fur ther more, the fact th at ap pel lee ’s w ife ow ns the C amero n C ounty ho u se does not est abl is h tha t app ell ee i s d omic il ed i n Tex as. The record c ontai ns evide n ce t h a t: ( 1) nob ody li v es in the Came ron Coun ty hou se; and ( 2) the hou se has remain ed vacantfor a subs tanti al per iod of ti me. M or eov er , t he record does not conc lus iv ely es tabl is h tha t app ellee h as an o w nersh ip interestin the ho use, and such evidence of the act s of

a third p a rty are notrele v ant t o our min imum- cont act s a nal y si s. Se e R et am c o Op er

at i ng, Inc. , 278 S. W .3d a t 338 -3 9; see als o Holten , 168 S.W .3d a t 784. Therefore, w e cannot say that the t ri al cour

t had personal jur is dicti on ov er appell ee s ole ly

bas ed on appel lee ’s pote nti al
ow nershi p of the house

. The in v est ment ac count s a t C hase and I BC bank s d o notreflectre g u l a r t ra nsac ti ons ma d e b y a p p e l l e e
. D o c u me n t s r e g a rd i n g t h e C h a s e i n v e s t me n t a c c o u n tsh owthat appel lee remov ed shares of stoc k from one a cc ount and dep osi ted t hem i nto a nother
acc ount on J anuar

y 26, 2009. D ocument s p ertai nin g to he IB C acc ount ind ic ated that appel lee purchas ed a cer ti ficat e of depos it

on M ar ch 16, 2 007, and t hat t he ac countT he st at em ent f r om I BC cont ai ns a denot at i on i n t he l et t er head t hat I BC i s based i n Br ownsv i l l e, 11 T exas; howev er , t he st at em ent doe s not i ndi cat e t hat t he account w as act ual l y est abl i shed at an I BC br anch i n T exas. T he l ocat i on o ft he p ost off i ce bo x i s unknown base d on t he r ecor d be f or e us.

12 15 matured on Oct ober

16, 2007. N eit her

of the a cc o u n t st a te ments ind ic ate t hat t he 11 transacti ons we re c o n d u cte d by a s peci fic b ank branch in Tex as. F urther , t o faci li tate a cl aimed ex empti on from w it hhol din g tax es re g ardin g hi s C hase inv est ment acco u nt, appel lee procured a postoff ic e box and filed ce rt ain forms w it h the I n te rn al Rev enue 12 Ser v ic e. Base d on the e v ide nce cont ain ed i n the record, w e find that appel lee ’s co ntac ts w it h Tex as ar e att enuated and do not ind ic ate that appel lee pur poseful ly av ail ed hims elf of the jur is dic ti on of thi s s tate. See Retamco Operating , Inc. , 278 S.W .3d a t 338 -3 9; Holten , 168 S.W .3d a t 784 ; G o o de n b o ur, 6 4 S.W .3d at 79 (no ting that a single act can supp ort jurisdiction bu t tha t a single act or occasion al acts m ay be insu f f icient to estab lish jur is dic ti on i f the nat ure and q ual ity of the act create merel y an a ttenu ated conne cti on w it h the for um); Televe ntu res, Inc. , 12 S.W .3d a t 907 ; see als o Bur ger Ki ng , 471 U .S. at 47 5 n.18; H. Hel

ler & Co. v. Loui

si ana- Paci fic C or p. , 209 S.W .3d 844, 850 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [14th D is t.] 2006, pet. deni ed) ( noti ng thatsi ng le or oc cas ion al act s may

be i nsuffici ent t o esta blish jurisdiction where t h e irn atu re and q uality of the af f iliation w ith the forum is atten uated)

. W e ag re e w it h the t ria l court that the g uardia nshi p proceed ing sh oul d be handl ed i n M ex ic o, es peci all y co nsi der ing the fact th at ap pel la n t seeks to manag e al l of app ellee’s est ate in this g uard iansh ip procee ding, the majo ri t y o f wh ich is located in Mex ico. App ellanthas not directe d us to any aut hority dem onst rating that th e trial court’s
conc lus ion s o f law

w er e er ro neous or

thati ts fi n d in gs of factw ere mani festl y unj ustor16

ag ain st the g re at w e igh t and preponderance of the ev ide nce. See Kelly , 301 S.W .3d a t 660; Goodenb our

, 64 S.W .3d a t 75; Ol

son , 21 S.W .3d at 715. Acc ordin g ly , w e c oncl ude that the tr ial co urt di d noter r in g ra nti ng appel lee ’s sp eci al appearance. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 120 a(3); see also Ke lly, 301 S.W

. 3 d at 65 7 (“[W ]e review de no v o the trial court’s deter minat ion of a s peci al appearance. ”)

. W e the re fore ov er ru le appel lan t’ s first is sue. III . M OT I ON F OR C ONT I NUA NCE In hi s s econd i ss ue, a ppel lan t c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt vio la te d Tex as Rul e of Ci v i l P ro c e d u r e 1 2 0 a ( 3 ) a n d , t h u s , a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g h i s mo t i on for cont inu ance to procure ev ide nce to es tabl is h the tr ial court ’s i n personam jur is dicti on ov er appel lee

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 120a( 3)

. Appel lee arg ues that the tr ial courtproper ly deni ed appel lan t’ s mot ion for c onti nuanc e bec ause the addit ion al di sc ov er y soug ht by

appel lan t “w as a fis hin g ex pedi ti on to obtain the pri v ate fin anci al re cords of Appel lee ” and app ell ee has already

co nfir med that he had inv est ment acc ounts in Tex as. Appel lee furth er arg ues that the a cc ount in f o rm a ti on th at ap pel lan t s oug ht w as not mat er ial to the d eter minat ion of appell ee’ s s peci al appearance. A . A pp licab le L aw Al l cour ts hav e i nherent pow er

to g ra nt or

deny a c onti nuanc e. McClure v. Atteb ury , 2 0 S. W .3 d 72 2 , 7 2 9 (T e x. Ap p .–Am a rill o 19 9 9 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Br ay v. Mi ller , 397 S.W .2d 103, 1 0 5 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–D all as 1965, no w ri t) ). W hen rev iew ing a t ri al cour t’ s o rd er deny ing a moti on for

conti nuanc e, w e consi der on a ca se- by -c ase basi s w hether the tr ial
cour t c ommitt ed a cl ear

abus e of di sc re ti on. See BMC Software , 83 S.W .3d at 800 ( ci ti ng Vi lle g as v. Car

ter , 7 1 1 S

. W

. 2 d 6 2 4 , 6 2 6 ( Te x . 1 9 8 6 ) )

. A t r i a l c o u rta b u s e s i t s d is cr eti on17

w hen i t reache s a dec is ion so ar bit ra ry and unreason abl e tha t i t amount s t o a cl ear and pr eju dic ial er ro r of law

. Id. Before w e w ill reverse the trial court’s ruling, i t shou ld clearly app ear from the record that the trial court has disregarded the pa rty ’s ri ghts. See Yo we ll
v. Pi per Ai rcra ft Cor

p. , 703 S.W .2d 630 , 635 (Tex. 1986 ). The Tex as Supreme Cour t has consi dered the foll ow ing non- ex cl usi v e factors w hen deci din g w hether

a t ri al cour

t abused it s dis creti on i n deny ing a mot ion for c onti nuanc e fil ed for th e pur pose of g ain ing addi ti onal ti me for dis cov er y : (1 ) the len g th of t ime the c ase has been on f il e; (2) the mater ial ity and pur pose of the di sc ov er y so ug ht; and ( 3) w hether the par ty se eki ng the cont inu ance has ex er ci sed due di li g ence to ob tai n the di sc ov er y so ug ht. BMC Software , 83 S. W .3d at 800 (addressin g the dilig ence a n d l e n gth of time o n f ile factors) ; Tenn eco Inc . v . En ter . Pr ods. C o. , 925 S.W .2d 6 40, 6 47 ( Tex . 199 6) ( anal yz ing the mat er ial ity

and pur pose factors) ; Nat’ l Union Fire Ins

. C o
. v. CBI Indu s., Inc. , 907 S.W .2d 5 17, 5 21- 22 ( Tex . 199 5) ( re v iew ing t h e m a ter ial ity factor ); Sta te v. W

ood Oil Distrib., Inc. , 751 S.W .2d 8 63, 8 65 ( Tex . 198 8) ( address ing the dil ig ence factor ); see a lso Per ro tta v. Far

m er s Ins. Exch. , 47 S.W .3d 5 69, 5 76 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 1, no pet .) ( usi ng thes e factors t o dec ide w hether a t ri al cour

t abused it s dis creti on in den y ing a moti on for cont in u a nce)

. To deter mine w hether the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on by gr a n t in g a p p e ll e e ’s sp e c ia l a p p e a ra n c e wit h o u ta ll o win g a d d it io n a l t im e fo r d is c o ve ry, we a p p l y t h e s e fa c t o rs t o t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e re c o rd bef or e us. See BMC Software , 83 S.W .3d a t 800

. B. Discus sion In arg uin g thathe sh oul d hav e been g ra nted a c onti nuanc e to condu ct addi ti onal18

dis cov er y , appell ant rel ies heav il y upon Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 120a( 3)

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 12 0 a (3 ). Rul e 12 0 a (3 ) pr o vide s t h e fo llo wing:

The cour t shal l deter mine the s peci al appearance on th e bas is of the ple adi ng s, any

stip ula ti ons made byand betw een the parti es, su ch aff ida v it s and atta chm ent s as ma y be filed by the partie s, the results of d is c o ve ry proces ses , and any

oral tes ti mony
. The aff ida v it s, if any , s hal l be s er v ed at lea st sev en day s b efore t he hear ing , shal l be made on personal kn ow led g e, shall set forth spe cif ic fa cts as w ould be ad missible in e v iden ce, an d sha ll s h o w a f f ir m a t ive ly t h a tt h e a f

f ia n tis co m p e t e n tt o t e s t ify. Shoul d i t app ear

from t h e a f

f ida v it s o f a par

ty oppos ing the moti on t h a th e ca n n o tfor

r e a s o n s st a t e d pre s e n tb y a ffi d a v i tfa c t s e s s e n t i a l t o j u s t i fy his oppos it ion , the cour t m ay or der a continuanc e to per

m it aff ida vits to be obtaine d or dep osition s to be ta ken o r discovery to be had or m ay m ake su ch oth er order as is just

. Id. (emp hasis ad ded ). W hen describing the trial court’s po w er to e n t e r o rd e rs to perm it addi ti onal di sc ov er

y , r ule 120a( 3) uti li z es the t er m, “ may ,” w hic h does n o t co nnote a mandator

y duty

. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 311.016( 1) ( Ver non 200 5) ( “‘ Ma y ’ creates discretion arya u t h o ri t y or g rants pe rmission o r a pow er.”); D all as Cou nty

Cm ty. C ollege Dis t. v. Bolton , 185 S.W .3d 868 , 873 (Tex. 2005 ); see also Bu rkhart v. Sed gw ick Cl aim Mgm t. Servs., Inc. , No

. 1 3 -0 8 -0 0 3 5 1 -C V , 2 0 0 9 T e x. A p p
. L E XI S 6 9 8 3 , a t*1 1 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti Aug . 31, 2009, no pet.) ( mem. op.)

. Thus, as noted abov e, i t w as
w it hin the sol e di sc re ti on of the tr ial co urt t o det er mine w hether to gra nt ap pel lan t a cont inu ance to procure addi ti onal dis cov er y . See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 120a( 3) ; see als o Bar ro n
v. Vanier

, 190 S.W .3d 8 41, 8 47 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 06, n o pet .); M. G.M. G ra nd Hotel, In c. v. Castro , 8 S.W .3d 4 03, 4 12 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1999, no p et.)

. In hi s S eptember

14, 2009 mot ion for c onti nuanc e, ap pel lan t as ser ted, as bases for the c onti nuanc e, t hat h e w as onl y g iv en tw o we e ks to re spond to appel lee ’s sp eci al19

appearance. Ap pel lan t furt her as ser ted t hat “ he has reason to bel iev e tha t t he Propose d W ard, A RM AN DO GARC IA CAR DE NA S has asset s in the Uni ted States and in par ti cul ar Cameron C ounty w here he has est abl is hed ‘c ontac ts’ w it hin thi s Cou rt ’s jur is dicti on.” On appeal , app ell ant, in arg uin g that the tri al cour t abused it s d is creti on by deny ing hi s mot ion for c onti nuanc e, reli es heav il y on t he Bar

ro n dec is ion f ro m t h e FortW orth C our t of Appeal s. See 190 S.W .3d a t 851

. W e find the fact s i n Bar ro n to be di sti ng uis habl e. In Bar ro n , t he For

t W orth Cour

t concl uded that t he tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on in den y ing app ellant ’s motio n for contin uan ce in a case pertain ing to allegedly defam ato ry sta tements made by

C ali forni a re sidents on a n Int er net mes sag e board abouta Tex as re si dent w ho w as the c hie f operat ion s o ff ic er of Fi rs t C ash Fi nanci al Ser v ic es. Id. at 84 3- 44, 8 51. The Bar

ro n co urt reason ed th at t he addi ti onal infor mati on that appel lan t s oug ht to di sc ov er , i ncl udi ng bu sin e ss co mmunic ati ons, adv erti si ng , c ontac ts, and int er net post ing s ment ion ing Tex as, w oul d aid i n det er mini ng w hether Tex as cour

ts had personal jur is dic ti on ov er

the Cal ifor nia resi dents and that appel lan t did not hav e suff ic ien t t ime to condu ct dis cov er

y reg ardin g j ur is dicti on, w hen l ess t h a n t w o w eeks pas sed betw een a federal co urt order , and the fili ng of a spec ial appearance and t he hear ing on t he s peci al appearance w as setfor a pprox imat ely tw o w eeks l ater

. Id. at 847- 51. As noted abov e, ap pel lee fil ed hi s spec ial appearance on Aug ust28, 2009, and t he tr ia l court grant ed a ppe llant two continu ance s and re-set the h earing on ap pellan t’s g uardia nshi p appli cat ion for September

15, 2009, more than tw o w eeks after the fili ng of the s peci al appearance. N ev erthel ess , i n his appel lat e br ief, ap pel lan t s tates that add itiona l discov eryw ould allow him to ascertain: (1) w het her ap pellee has an ow nersh ip20

intere st in the Cam eron Count y hom e; (2) the e x istence of inv estm entaccou nts atChase Bank , i ncl udi ng w hen t hey w ere opene d, ho w

often transacti ons took pl ace, and any chang es in the a cc ount sta tus ; ( 3) the number of v is it s made to Tex as by appel lee or

othe r int er est ed par

ti es; and (4) Un it ed St ates tax fil ing s. H ow ev er , mos t, if not all , of the addi ti onal i nfo rm a ti o n soug ht by appel lan t i s a lready

co ntai ned i n the record. In fact , appel lan t at tac hed the informati on to his f irst amended appli cat ion for guardia nshi p fil ed on Sep tember

15, 2009. Includ ed a s ex hibits to his first am end ed guardia nship app lication a re: (1) a repo rt prod uced b y th e C am eron C ou nty Ap prai s al D i s tr i c t l i s ti ng th e ho us e at 80 9 M orel os in Ranch o Viejo, as ow ned byCarmen Garcia, ap pellee ’s wi fe; (2) a repo rt created byChase Investm entServ ices Corporat ion listing the accou nt numb ers and types of inv estm ent s in tw o s eparate a cc ounts ow ned by appel lee ; ( 3) a s tatementreflect ing the openi ng date , ter m, bal ance, and other per ti nent infor mati on reg ardin g appel lee ’s i nv est ment ac countat IBC ; and ( 4) a “ Cer

ti ficat e of Foreig n St atus of Benefic ial O wne r Un it ed St ates Tax W it hhol din g ” filed w it h the U nit ed St ates Int er nal R ev enue S er v ic e byappel lee

. Her re ra , the a ttor ney

ad li tem for

appell ee, s tated at the S eptember 15, 2009 he ar ing thatappel lee and o t h e r p e o p l e i n V a l l e H e r mo s a t o l d h i m t h a t a p p e l l e e h a d n e v e r l i v e d i n t h e U nit ed Stat es. M oreov er , D eputy Pereznote d i n his aff ida v itthathe w as tol d by nei g hbors t hat the residence at 809 Morelos “is alw ays em pty” and that“no one is ev er there .” Base d on our rev iew , mo st of the ad dition al informa tion so ught b y a p p ellantis alread y conta ined in the record , and w e can notsaythatapp ellan t ’s ri ghts w ere dis re g arded. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 120a( 3) ; Tenn eco In c. , 925 S.W .2d a t 647 ; CB I Indus. ,Because appel l ant has f ai l ed t o pr eser v e t hi s i ssue f or app eal , w e ne ed n ot anal y z e whet her 13 a p p e l l a n t h a s a ri g h t t o a p p e a l fro m th e d e n i a l o f a m o ti o n fo r s u b s ti tu te s e rv i c e
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. 21 Inc. , 907 S.W .2d a t 521 -2 2; Yowell , 703 S.W .2d a t 635 ; Bar ro n , 190 S.W .3d a t 849 -5 0;
see als o F

ountai n v . Bu rk lun d , N o. 03 -0 1- 00380- CV , 200 1 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 8 252, at * 17 (Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n D ec. 13, 2001, pet. deni ed) (n ot de si g nated for publ ic ati on) ( sta ti ng that a par ty seeki ng a cont inu ance must demonst ra te suff ic ien t cause and, w hen the bas is for the mot ion is the “w ant of tes ti mony ,” the mov ant must show that the tes ti mony

i s mat er ial and c a n n o t b e p ro c u r e d fro m a n y o t h e r s o u r c e a n d t h a t h e h a s u s e d d u e di li g ence to
se cu re it) (cit in g T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 251 , 252 ). M oreo v er, app ellanthas no t dem onst rated his dil ig ence in procur ing the re q uest ed i nformati on. See BMC Software , 83 S.W .3d a t 800 ; see a lso W

ood Oil D istrib., Inc. , 751 S.W .2d at 86 5. As a resul t, w e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial
cour t di d notabus e i ts dis cre tion i n deny ing appel lan t’ s mot ion for c onti nuanc e for the pur poses of proc ur ing addi ti onal di sc ov er y . See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 120 a(3); BMC Software , 8 3 S .W .3d a t 800 ; Yowell , 703 S.W .2d a t 635 ; see als o Bar ro n , 1 9 0 S

. W

. 3 d at 84 7; Castro , 8 S.W .3d a t 412

. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. IV. M OT I ON FO R S U B STI TU TE S E RV I CE In h i s th i rd i s s ue , ap pe l l an t as s er ts th at th e tr i al c ou rt ab us ed i ts di scretion in deny ing hi s mot ion for s ubst it ute s er v ic e ev en th oug h the moti on w as “i n proper form” and iti s u ndi sput ed th at ap pel lee ow ns a home in C amero n C ounty

. Appel lee co unters b y arguing that ap pellan t has failed to preserve this issue for app eal be cause he did n ot object to the trial court’s denial at the Sep tem ber 15, 200 9 hea ring and he did n ot ind icate in his noti ce of appeal thathe i nten d e d to appeal the tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng on t he moti on for subs ti tute ser

v ic e. 1322

Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 25.1 (d )( 2) prov i d e s , a mong othe r thi ng s, that the noti ce of appeal i n a c iv il ca se must “s tate th e d a te of the jud g ment or

order appeal ed f rom. ” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.1( d) (2 ); see als o D ugan v . C om pass Bank , 129 S.W .3d 5 79, 581 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2003, no pet .)

. Here, appell ant only stated that he w as appeal ing the t ri al cour

t’ s i nter loc utor

y orders o n the sp eci al appea ra nce and t he moti on for cont inu ance. Ap pel lan t’ s n oti ce of appeal nev er i ndi cat es an i ntentto a p p e a l th e tr ial court’s de nial of

his mot ion for substitu te service. F urthe rmore , the record doe s not ref lect that appel lan t obj ect ed to the tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng on t his moti on at the September 15, 2009. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a) (1 ); Gal lar do v . U gar te , 145 S.W .3d 272, 276 (Tex . Ap p .–El Paso 2004, pet. deni ed) ; see a lso Old Repu blic Ins. Co. v. W eeks , N o. 13 -0 7- 00451- CV , 2009 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 4139, at * 14 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Ju ne 11, 2009, pet. deni ed) (mem. op.) (“ To preser v e error for appeal, a party

m ustmake a ti mely , s peci fic o bje cti on to th e trial court tha t nam es the g roun ds for the o bjectio n wi t h s uf f icient spe cif icity .”). T here fore, ba sed o n the foregoing, we co nclud e tha t this issue is not p reserved for app eal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 2 5.1, 33.1; see also Parrish v. Ruthe rford , 1 5 9 S

. W

. 3 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 7 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2004, n o p e t. ) ( hol din g thatan i ss ue w as not p re ser v ed for appeal becau se appel lan ts’ noti ce of appeal faile d to spec ify the o rd er from w hic h the pur por

ted is sue arose)

. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue. V. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of appell ant’ s i ss ues on appe al, w e aff ir m the jud g ments of the tr ial cour t.
ROGEL IO VAL DEZ, Chief Justice Del iv er ed and filed the 24th day of June, 2010.