Opinion ID: 6108933
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Transfer of the House Sale Proceeds

Text: At the crux of Old Republic's fraudulent-transfer claim is Bell's sale of the house and the subsequent transfer of those funds to Goldsmith. Old Republic argues: Goldsmith knowingly accepted sales proceeds from Texas real estate. Goldsmith did not merely receive money, ignorant about its character or origin. Goldsmith took the voluntary action of depositing those funds from a Texas-based asset into her account. Although that action occurred in Louisiana, it traced its effect to Texas because it pulled money out of Texas and she knew it. This constitutes purposeful availment. Once more, we look only to Goldsmith's contacts with the forum to determine if Goldsmith purposefully availed herself of the state of Texas. See Moncrief Oil Int'l Inc. , 414 S.W.3d at 151 ([O]nly the defendant's contacts with the forum are relevant ....). We do not determine whether or not the transaction was in fact fraudulent, as that gets to the merits of the lawsuit; regardless, Goldsmith's conduct with respect to this alleged contact was exclusively in Louisiana. Old Republic suggests that Texas courts have consistently found personal jurisdiction to exist against a knowing participant in a fraudulent-transfer scheme, citing this Court's decision in Retamco Operating, Inc. , 278 S.W.3d at 339 , and a court of appeals' case, Trigeant Holdings, Ltd. v. Jones , 183 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). We distinguish both of those cases because both  involve the transfer of Texas-based assets to an out-of-state defendant, rather than the transfer of money, a fungible asset. Retmaco Operating, Inc. involved the allegedly fraudulent transfer of oil and gas interests in Texas to a California corporation. 278 S.W.3d at 336 . We held that by taking an assignment of Texas real property, [the California corporation] reached out and created a continuing relationship in Texas. Id. at 339 . Similarly, Trigeant Holdings, Ltd. involved the allegedly fraudulent transfer of an interest in a Corpus Christi refinery to two Florida entities. 183 S.W.3d at 722 . The court of appeals in that case affirmed the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction, holding that [b]y participating in a Texas transaction involving the transfer of Texas-based assets to allegedly defraud a Texas resident, the [Florida entities] purposefully availed [themselves] of the benefits and privileges of conducting business in Texas. Id. at 728 . Thus, the determining facts in both cases were not simply the allegedly fraudulent transfers, but instead the transfers of Texas-based business operations and real property, which derive profit from Texas and create continuing connection with the state. This case might have mirrored those cases if Bell had transferred an interest in the house itself to Goldsmith; however, she transferred a fungible asset-money-with no continuing presence in Texas, and the mere act of accepting the transfer of money drawn on a Texas bank is of negligible significance for purposes of determining whether [a foreign defendant] had sufficient contacts in Texas. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall , 466 U.S. 408 , 416-17, 104 S.Ct. 1868 , 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). Reversing this Court's holding, the United States Supreme Court held, Common sense and everyday experience suggest that, absent unusual circumstances, the bank on which a check is drawn is generally of little consequence to the payee and is not an appropriate consideration when determining whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with a forum State to justify an assertion of jurisdiction. Id. Thus, even if Goldsmith's receipt of funds were part of an elaborate fraudulent-transfer scheme, her contacts do not establish purposeful availment of the state of Texas, and the appropriate judicial forum to address Old Republic's claims against Goldsmith is Louisiana.