Family Sues Trustee in Personal Capacity

In Hanschen v. Hanschen, a trustee challenged a default judgment. No. 05-19-01134-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 4075 (Tex. App.—Dallas Might 28, 2020, no pet. historical past). The household sued the trustee in his private capability and in his capability as trustee for breaching fiduciary duties. Whereas the trustee was in Texas, the household served him in his private capability. The household then obtained a default judgment towards him in each capacities when he didn’t file a solution. Later, the trustee filed a particular look difficult the courtroom’s private jurisdiction, and the trial granted the movement. The household then appealed.

The courtroom of appeals reversed the particular look towards the trustee in his private capability. The courtroom held that as a result of the trustee was personally served in Texas, the trial courtroom had private jurisdiction over him:

On this case, the household personally served James with the petition and quotation whereas he was in Texas. The household concedes they “have by no means asserted that Texas has normal jurisdiction over James or that the normal minimal contacts evaluation could be met within the absence of his bodily presence.” They’re right and the case legislation is obvious {that a} trial courtroom has authority to train in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident the place the courtroom’s jurisdiction grew out of the non-public service of quotation upon the nonresident inside the state. A nonresident, merely by purpose of his nonresidence, just isn’t exempt from a courtroom’s jurisdiction if he voluntarily involves the state and thus is inside the territorial limits of such jurisdiction and will be duly served with course of.

Id. The trustee additionally argued that the courtroom didn’t have satisfactory jurisdiction over him in his private capability as a result of there have been no claims towards him in that capability, however the courtroom of appeals disagreed:

Whereas we could agree with James that the default judgment granted aid towards the entities for which it might be obligatory for Texas courts to have jurisdiction over James in consultant capacities, the household’s petition pleaded causes of motion towards James individually for breaches of fiduciary duties arising from his position as trustee of the Progeny Belief and his roles in NBR-C2, NBR-C3, and NBR-Needham. The household seeks exemplary damages towards James for these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. James doesn’t make a particular argument why these claims should not pleaded towards him personally. In Texas, typically an agent is personally responsible for his personal tortious conduct. For these causes, we agree with the household that James was personally served with course of in Texas, so the trial courtroom has private jurisdiction over him in that capability.

Id.

The courtroom of appeals then turned as to whether the trial courtroom had private jurisdiction over the trustee in his capability as trustee. The courtroom famous that the quotation was not issued to him in that capability. The courtroom held that this defect was dispositive and affirmed the particular look for the trustee in his consultant capability:

We’ve held, “[t]he capability through which a non-resident has contact with a discussion board state have to be thought of within the jurisdictional evaluation.” James was not served with a quotation directed to him in any consultant capability; solely “JAMES HANSCHEN WHEREEVER HE MAY BE FOUND.” At oral argument, the household argued the itemizing of all of the events within the quotation was enough to represent service on James in every consultant capability he was listed as a defendant. We reject this competition and the household’s counsel acknowledged in oral argument a quotation addressed to at least one defendant inadvertently served on a unique, unrelated defendant wouldn’t represent good service of course of merely as a result of all defendants’ names have been within the checklist of defendants within the model of the lawsuit… On this case, James was not served with citations which have been returned to the courtroom clerk stating he had been served in his consultant capacities. Any failure to adjust to the foundations relating to service of course of renders the tried service of course of invalid, and the trial courtroom acquires no private jurisdiction over the defendant. A default judgment based mostly on improper service is void. Accordingly, the trial courtroom didn’t have private jurisdiction over James in his consultant capacities.

Id.