1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 07 - 41 1- CV W E NDE L LS
. M CC AL L AP P E L L ANT V. JERI L. M C C A LL A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 3 60TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I n t hi s di vor ce pr oce edi ng, W end el l S. M cCal l ( “h us ban d” ) i s at t em pt i ng t o appeal t he t r i al cour t ’ s or dergr ant i ng Jer i L. M cC al l ’ s ( “w i f e”) speci al
a p p e a r a n c e . We a f f i r m. Hus ba nd l i ve s i n Te xa s a nd f i l e d f or di vo r c e i n t hi s s t a t e o n Augu s t29, 20 06
. O n O ct ober2, 20 06 , w i f e— w h o r esi des i n A l abam a w i t h t he par t i es’
m i n o r c h i l d

— fi l e d a s p e c i a l a p p e a ra n c e . O n O c to b e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 7 , th e tri a l c o u rt si gne d a n or ders us t ai ni ng w i f e’ s sp ec i al app ea r anc e, f i ndi ng t hat“ t he St at e o f2 ... O n Nov e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 7, hus ban d a l so f i l ed a p et i t i on f orw r i tof

m and am us i n t he Supr em e CourtofTexa s, an d t h a t cou rtde ni ed t he w r i ton J a n u a ry1 1 , 2 0 0 8
. 3 ... Hus ba nd f i l e d hi s n ot i c e o fa pp e a l i n t he t r i a l c ou rto n Nov e m be r7, 2007
. 4 ... Th e Al a ba m a c ou rt s e t a h e a r i ng f ort e m po r a r y or de r s o n M a r c h 4, 2008
. A ppe l l antha s notpr ovi ded us w i t h a ny i nf or m at i on i ndi ca t i ng t hathe di d not a tte n d th i s h e a ri n g o r h a s fu rth e r c h a l l e n g e d th e A l a b a m a c o u rt’s ru l i n g . 2 A l a b a m a i s a m o re c o n v e n i e n t f o rum f o r th i s l a w su i t, ” a n d “d e c l i n [i n g ] to
exer ci se j ur i sdi ct i on. ” Ther ea f t er , on Novem ber1, 2007 , hus ban d f i l ed a p et i t i on fo r w r i tof
m and am us i n t hi s cou rti n w hi ch he cha l l eng ed t he t r i al cou rt ’ s r ul i ng s us t ai ni ng
w i f e ’ s s pe c i a l a pp e a r a nc e . W e d e ni e d t he w r i to n Nov e m be r6, 20 0 7 . 2 O n Nov e m be r21, 2007 , 3w e re c e i v e d h u s b a n d ’s n o ti c e o f a p p e a l . O n O ct obe r 2 6 , 2007 , w i f e f i l ed f ordi vor ce i n Al aba m a. Husba nd
s pe c i a l l y a pp e a r e d i n t ha tc a s e a nd f i l e d a m ot i on t o di s m i s s . On F e br ua r y 1, 20 08 , t he A l abam a cour t , i n r el i ance on t he T exas t r i al cour t ’ s r ul i ng, ent er ed
a n o rd e r d e n y i n g h u s b a n d ’s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s a n d “ e x e rc i s [i n g ] i n personam j ur i sdi ct i on” overbot h husban d and w i f e. 4 O n Febr uar y 19 , 20 08 , w i f e f i l e d a m ot i on i n t hi s courtt o di sm i ss hus ban d’ s app ea l f orw antofj ur i sd i ct i on. W e r equ es t ed t hathus ban d r es pond t o t he m ot i on t o di sm i ssby M arc h 3 , 2008
. As oft hi s dat e, w e h ave not5 ... See BM CSoft ware Bel gi um , N
. V
. v. Marcha nd, 83 S
. W . 3d 789, 794 ( Tex. 2002 ) ( hol di ng t hatt he t r i al co urt ’ s l ega l co ncl us i ons a re rev i ew ed de n o v o a n d th a t fa c tu a l fi n d i n g s a re re v i e w e d fo r l e g a l a n d fa c tu a l s u fficie n c y ).
6 ... S ee A l

l state I ns. Co. v. Hal

l m an , 1 5 9 S. W . 3d 640, 642 ( Te x. 2005 ) ( hol di ng t hat a c as e i s m ootw hen i ss ues pr es ent ed ar e n o l onge r“ l i ve” ort he p a rti e s l a c ka l e g a l l yc o g n i z a b l e i n t e r e s t i n th e o u tc o m e ); K
. D
. F. v. Rex , 878 S
. W . 2d 58 9, 59 3– 94 ( Tex . 19 94 ) ( hol di ng t hat “Texas w i l l r ecogn i ze t he l aw s and j udi ci al de ci si ons ofot hers t at es , ex pec t i ng t hatt ho s e s ta t es w i l l ex t end T e x a s th e s a m e c o n s i d e ra ti o n ” ); Mobi l Oi l Cor p. v. Fi r st State Bankof

D enton , N o . 0 2 -0 2 -0 0 1 1 9 -C V , 2 0 0 4 W L 1 6 9 9 9 2 8 , a t * 1 (T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h J u ly 29 , 20 04 , no pet . ) ( m em . op. ) ( di sm i ssi ng app eal f o r w a n t ofj ur i sdi ct i on as m o o t w h e re s u b s ta n ti v e d i s p u te s w e re re n d e re d m o o t). S ee general ly Hawsey v. La. D ep’t of

So ci al Servs. , 9 3 4 S .W .2 d 7 2 3 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 1 9 9 6 , w ri t d e n i e d ) (d i s c u s s i n g p ri n c i p l e s o f c o m i ty ).
7 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P . 4 2 .3 (a ), (c), 4 3 .2 (f). 3 re c e i v e d a re s p o n s e . A ppl yi ng t he appr opr i at e st andar ds ofr evi ew , 5w e h o l d th a t th e tri a l c o u rt pr oper l y sust ai ned w i f e’ s speci al appear ance. 6Accor di ngl y, w e af f i r m t he t r i al
c o u rt ’s j u d g m e n t. 7 P E R CU R I AM P A N E LA : C A Y C E , C .J .; D A U P H IN O T a n d G A R D N E R , J J . DEL I VERE D: M a r c h 27, 2008