Source: http://texas-opinions.com/09-Retamco-Operating-Inc-v-Republic-Drilling-Co-Tex-2009-personal-jurisdiction-out-of-state-defendant-UFTA-claim.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:05:18+00:00

Document:
judgment and remand for trial.
Paradigm and the trial court entered a $16 million default judgment against Paradigm.
that they led to Paradigm’s insolvency, rendering it unable to satisfy ROI’s claims.
Texas courts, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment.
the judgment and supported by the evidence are implied.” BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v.
due process will allow.” Id. at 575 (citations omitted); accord Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v.
requirements. See Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575 (citations omitted); Guardian Royal Exch.
Assur., Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991).
before a Texas court. Int'l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 316.
of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958) (citing Int’l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 319).
jurisdiction arises when the defendant’s contacts with the forum are continuous and systematic. Id.
Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575–76 (citing Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 228).
or profit by availing itself of the jurisdiction.
interests are real property interests. Renwar Oil Corp. v. Lancaster, 276 S.W.2d 774, 776 (Tex.
1955); State v. Quintana Petroleum Co., 133 S.W.2d 112, 115 (Tex. 1939) (citing Sheffield v.
benefits and protection of [Texas laws.]” Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 787 (citing Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S.
no doubt of the continuing relationship that this ownership creates.
Republic’s contacts with Texas were also not the result of the unilateral actions of a third party.
Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 784–85.
defendant’s liability arises from or relates to the forum contacts.” Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 579.
obligation.” Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.005(a)(1), (2); Trigeant Holdings, Ltd. v. Jones, 183 S.
but also against ‘the first transferee of the asset,’ or any ‘subsequent transferee’”).
given for the property and whether the leases were taken in good faith. See Tex. Bus. & Com.
interest in an asset . . . .”) (emphasis added). Here, the Texas oil and gas interests are the assets.
UFTA analysis; without that proof, the UFTA claim fails.
state if the nonresident . . . commits a tort in whole or in part in this state”); see also In re Tex. Am.
under the UFTA is a tort).
the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.
litigating outside its home state, but these other factors weigh heavily against this burden.
jurisdiction over Republic does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
and remand to the trial court for further proceeding consistent with this opinion.
case for a determination of unliquidated damages. Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc., 161 S.W.
75. ROI also originally sued Finley Oilwell Service, but the claim was severed. The result was the same.
Retamco Operating, Inc. v. McCallum, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2009) (per curiam).
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §17.042.
would or would not have a reasonable expectation of being called into a Texas courtroom.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 § 24
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §17