Opinion ID: 895089
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Arise From or Related to

Text: [P]urposeful availment alone will not support an exercise of specific jurisdiction ... unless the defendant's liability arises from or relates to the forum contacts. Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 579. We look for a substantial connection between [the defendant's forum] contacts and the operative facts of the litigation. Id. at 585. Thus, we must consider the claims involved in the litigation to determine the operative facts. ROI alleges that Republic is the transferee of a fraudulent transfer in violation of the UFTA. The UFTA provides, in part, that [a] transfer ... is fraudulent ... if the debtor made the transfer ... with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor; or without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation. TEX. BUS. & COM.CODE § 24.005(a)(1), (2); Trigeant Holdings, Ltd. v. Jones, 183 S.W.3d 717, 726 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (noting that the UFTA not only creates liability against `the person for whose benefit the transfer was made,' such as the debtor, but also against `the first transferee of the asset,' or any `subsequent transferee'). Republic argues that the focus of the litigation will be on the assignment that took place in California because the operative facts involved will be whether reasonably equivalent value was given for the property and whether the leases were taken in good faith. See TEX. BUS. & COM.CODE §§ 24.005(a)(2), .006, .009. We agree that the assignment will be an operative fact, but the real property itself will also be an operative fact, or at the very least, will have a substantial connection to the operative facts. Without an asset, no fraudulent transfer can occur under the UFTA. See id. § 24.002(12) (`Transfer' means ... disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an asset ....) (emphasis added). Here, the Texas oil and gas interests are the assets. Proof that these assets were transferred and an assessment of their value will be essential to the UFTA analysis; without that proof, the UFTA claim fails. Republic is alleged to have received transfer of Texas real property from a Texas resident, during the pendency of a Texas suit, for the purpose of defrauding a Texas resident. As a result of this transaction, assets ROI may have recovered from Paradigm are now in the possession of Republic. These contacts are sufficient to demonstrate that this alleged tort occurred at least, in part, in Texas. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 17.042 (a nonresident does business in this state if the nonresident ... commits a tort in whole or in part in this state); see also In re Tex. Am. Express, Inc., 190 S.W.3d 720, 725 (Tex.App.-Dallas, no pet.) (noting that a fraudulent transfer under the UFTA is a tort).