                                                                              ACCEPTED
                                                                          02-15-00253-CV
                                                              SECOND COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                    FORT WORTH, TEXAS
                                                                   10/19/2015 12:00:00 AM
                                                                           DEBRA SPISAK
                                                                                   CLERK
                                                                FILED
                                                          COURT OF APPEALS
              IN THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS           SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     FORT WORTH, TEXAS               October 19, 2015
_______________________________________________________________
                                                     DEBRA SPISAK, CLERK
                      NO. 02-15-00249-CV

                   CHRISTOPHER HOSKINS
                               v.
               RICCO FAMILY PARTNERS, LTD.
_______________________________________________________________
                      NO. 02-15-00253-CV

                          DENNIS ECKEL
                                  v.
                RICCO FAMILY PARTNERS, LTD.
_______________________________________________________________
 Consolidated Appeals from the 442nd District Court of Denton County,
                                Texas
                The Hon. Tiffany Haertling, Presiding
_______________________________________________________________
                        APPELLEE'S BRIEF
_______________________________________________________________



                                   Cheryl D. Smith
                                   State Bar No. 18552910
                                   Law Office of Cheryl D. Smith
                                   6001 Bridge Street Suite 102
                                   Fort Worth, Texas 76112
                                   817-475-3034
                                   817-288-0641

                             ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE


             ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
                   IN THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS

                       FORT WORTH, TEXAS
   ______________________________________________________________
                         NO. 02-15-00249-CV

                     CHRISTOPHER HOSKINS
                                 v.
                 RICCO FAMILY PARTNERS, LTD.
  _______________________________________________________________
                        NO. 02-15-00253-CV

                          DENNIS ECKEL
                                 v.
                 RICCO FAMILY PARTNERS, LTD.
  _______________________________________________________________


TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

      NOW COMES Ricco Family Partners, LTD., Appellee, acting by and

through their attorney of record herein, and files this Appellee's Reply Brief for the

Court's consideration in this appeal from the denial of Appellants' Special

Appearance.
                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ii

STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

         I. Standards of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

        II. In Personam Jurisdiction over Hoskins and Eckel Was
            Established by Ricco's Allegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

      III. The Trial Court's Conclusions of Law are Legally Correct and
           are Supported by the Evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

      IV. Exercising Jurisdiction Over Hoskins and Eckel Would Not
           Offend Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial
          Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10




                                                       i
                                       INDEX OF AUTHORITIES


BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. 2002). . .2, 3
C-Loc Retention Sys., Inc. v. Hendrix, 993 S.W.2d at 476
(Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

E.L.M. LeBlanc v. Kyle, 28 S.W.3d at 101
(Tex. App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. denied) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

George v. Deardorff, 360 S.W.3d 683, 687
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Hitzelberger v. Samedan Oil Corp., 948 S.W.2d 497, 503 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997,
pet. denied) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992). . . . . . . . . . . 6

Hotel Partners v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 847 S.W.2d 630, 632 (Tex.App.-Dallas
1993, writ denied) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 6

Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 585 (Tex. 2007). . . . . 4,5

Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142, 150 (Tex. 2013). . . .2,3
Scholz v. Heath, 642 S.W.2d 554, 559 (Tex.App.-Waco 1982, no writ) . . . . . . . . .5
SITQ E.U. Inc. v. Reata Restaurants, Inc. 111 S.W 3rd 638 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth,
2005 pet den.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Templeton v. Dreiss, 961 S.W.2d 645, 656 n. 8 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, pet.
denied.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5


Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 17.042 (West 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,4




                                                               ii
                          STATEMENT OF FACTS


      Ricco Family Partners filed a suit for quiet title on February 14, 2014 to

resolve any issues related to the foreclosure Lot 8R Block A of Corporate Squate in

Denton County, Texas. (CR 50 ¶12). Christopher Hoskins and Dennis Eckel are the

limited partners in Vista Ridge Ltd. (Vista) and were originally named in the suit as

parties of interest. (CR 5). Ricco had previously foreclosed on the property of

which Vista, Hoskins and Eckel were liable on the note. (CR 50 ¶12). Vista,

Hoskins, and Eckel represented to Ricco that at the time of the foreclosure Zimba

Capital had a second lien on the property. (CR 6). Vista, Hoskins and Eckel were

served with Ricco’s Original Petition (CR 5) and answered the suit with Absolute

and Unconditional Disclaimers of any interest in the property in question. (CR 12,

15). Hoskins and Eckel did not file special appearances when they answered the

Original Petition with their disclaimers. (CR 12, 15). Unknown to Ricco, Hoskins

and Eckel agreed to extend and modify Vista's, their limited partnership, original

note to the second lien holder Zimba and claim it had been informally transferred to

Maracom prior to the foreclosure. CR 6) . This was in spite of the fact that Hoskins

and Eckel had no personal liability for Vista's note to Zimba and both Zimba and

Maracom knew Vista was insolvent. (CR 51 ¶22). Zimba’s claim had been

extinguished by the foreclosure and now Maracom was claiming a lien in excess of

l million dollars.(CR 51¶22).
                                     1
Hoskins and Eckel were then named as defendants when it was learned that they

had participated in a scheme to cloud Ricco’s title to the very property they lost in

foreclosure.

                         SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

      Specific jurisdiction over Hoskins and Eckel is proper due to their contacts

with Texas including entering in to contracts with Texas residents, making false

representations as to who the second lien holder on the property was to Ricco, and

engaging in actions with Maracom designed to harm Ricco’s financial interest in

Texas property. The Court’s conclusions of law were supported by the evidence

and jurisdiction over Hoskins and Eckel does not offend notions of fair play and

substantial justice.

                       ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

I.    Standards of Review

      Whether a trial court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant

is a question of law that will be reviewed de novo. Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO

Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142, 150 (Tex. 2013). If the trial court issues findings of

fact and conclusions of law on its denial of a special appearance, the appellant may

challenge the fact findings on legal and factual sufficiency grounds, and we may

review those fact findings for both legal and factual sufficiency. BMC Software

Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. 2002). The plaintiff bears


                                          2
the initial burden of pleading sufficient allegations to bring a nonresident defendant

within the provisions of the long-arm statute. Id. At 179. A defendant

challenging a Texas court's personal jurisdiction over it must negate all

jurisdictional bases. Id at 149. If the plaintiff pleads fails to plead facts bringing

the defendant within the reach of Texas’s long-arm statue, the defendant only need

prove that he does not live in Texas to meet the burden to negate jurisdiction.

George v. Deardorff, 360 S.W.3d 683, 687 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).

II.   In Personam Jurisdiction over Hoskins and Eckel Was Established by
      Ricco’s Allegations

      Specific jurisdiction exists when the claim arises from or is related to

activities purposefully conducted in the forum state. Moncrief, 414 S.W.3d at 150.

Thus, to have minimum contacts for purposes of specific jurisdiction, a nonresident

defendant must by some act have purposefully availed itself of the privileges of

conducting activities. Id. Texas’s long-arm statute authorizes Texas courts to

exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who “does business” in

Texas. Under the statute, a nonresident “does business” in Texas if: the

nonresident “[1] contracts . . . with a Texas resident and [2] either party is to

perform the contract in whole or in part in this state.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code

Ann. § 17.042 (West 2008). Contracting with a Texas resident can satisfy the

Texas long-arm statute as long as the acts show minimal contacts and are



                                           3
purposeful. Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 585 (Tex.

2007).

      Ricco’s facts supporting jurisdiction were as follows: Ricco is a Texas

Limited Partnership; Vista Ridge is a Texas Limited Partnership; Zimba is a

Texas entity; Maracom is a foreign corporation doing business in Texas.

      1. Hoskins and Eckel contracted with Ricco for a loan on property in Texas.
         (CR 49 ¶ 11 ).

      2. Hoskins and Eckel informed Ricco they could no longer make payments
         on the loan. (CR 50 ¶11).

      3. Hoskins and Eckel represented that Zimba was the second lien holder on
         the property. (CR 50 ¶17).

      4. Foreclosure notices were sent to Vista, Hoskins, Eckel and Zimba. (CR
         50 ¶12).

      5. Following the foreclosure, Hoskins and Eckel agreed to a hold harmless
         contract with Ricco which released all of the parties of any liability
         related to the property. (CR 50 ¶14).

      6. Hoskins and Eckel signed a quit claim deed to the property in Texas. (CR
         50 ¶14).

      7. Hoskins and Eckel both filed in this law suit statements of disclaimer to
         the property without filing a special appearance. (CR 12, 15).

      8. Hoskins and Eckel contracted with Maracom in 2014 through Vista to
         expand, modify, and extend the original note with Zimba (Texas
         Corporation) to Maracom. (CR 51 ¶ 22).

      9. Vista was insolvent. Neither Zimba nor Maracom had made any attempt
         to collect from Vista, Hoskins, or Eckel before or after the foreclosure
         and renewal of the note. (CR 51 ¶ 22).

                                         4
      10. Vista, Hoskins, and Eckel’s actions in renewing this note to Maracom
          furthered Maracom’s claim that the property now had l million dollar lien
          and Maracom was the lien holder. (CR 51 ¶ 22).

          Ricco plead sufficient facts to subject Hoskins and Eckel to Texas

jurisdiction. Hoskins and Eckel did not negate any of the numerous facts plead by

Ricco. There is substantial connection between Hoskins and Eckel’s activities in

Texas and the operative facts of this litigation. See Moki Mac 221.S.E. 3d 585.

III. The Trial Court’s Conclusions of Law are Legally Correct and Are
Supported by the Evidence.


     Appellate courts review a trial court's conclusions of law as a legal question.

Hitzelberger v. Samedan Oil Corp., 948 S.W.2d 497, 503 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997,

pet. denied).   The appellant may not challenge a trial court's conclusions of law

for factual insufficiency;  however, the reviewing court may review the trial court's

legal conclusions drawn from the facts to determine their correctness. Templeton

v. Dreiss, 961 S.W.2d 645, 656 n. 8 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, pet. denied. If

the reviewing court determines a conclusion of law is erroneous, but the trial court

rendered the proper judgment, the erroneous conclusion of law does not require

reversal. Scholz v. Heath, 642 S.W.2d 554, 559 (Tex.App.-Waco 1982, no writ).

The trial court may accept the facts plead as evidence to support its conclusions of

law. See E.L.M. LeBlanc v. Kyle, 28 S.W.3d at 101 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2000,

pet. denied);  C-Loc Retention Sys., Inc. v. Hendrix, 993 S.W.2d at 476 (Tex.App.-
                                          5
El Paso 1999, no pet.) If a trial court enters an order denying a special

appearance, and the trial court issues findings of fact and conclusions of law, the

appellant may challenge the fact findings on legal and factual sufficiency grounds.

See Hotel Partners v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 847 S.W.2d 630, 632 (Tex.App.-

Dallas 1993, writ denied). For legal sufficiency points, if there is more than a

scintilla of evidence to support the finding, the no evidence challenge fails. Holt

Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992).


      The trial court’s conclusions of law are legally correct. Hoskins and Eckel

failed to specifically deny the allegations made in Ricco’s Fourth Amended

Petition, instead relied on a single statement that they did not commit any tort in

Texas. As such the trial court’s analysis of the pleadings and the facts that those

pleadings present support its conclusions of law.

      Neither can Hoskins and Eckel hide behind Vista as a shield to their actions.

as officers and directors, Hoskins and Eckel are not protected from liability from

their own actions. SITQ E.U. Inc. v. Reata Restaurants, Inc. 111 S.W 3rd 638 (Tex.

App.-Fort Worth, 2005 pet den.). Hoskins and Eckel’s contacts with Texas due to

their misrepresentations and conspiracy.

IV.   Exercising Jurisdiction Over Hoskins and Eckel Would Not Offend
      Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice.




                                           6
       Hoskins and Eckel have both conducted business in Texas since 1995. (CR

54). Hoskins and Eckel have been involved in various land and property ventures

in Texas since which required their active participation and management in Texas.

(CR 54). Dennis Eckel filed suit on a sworn account against Tammy Stalling in

1986, Dallas County, Cause No. 8602571A. (CR 55). Sears, Roebuck & Co. sued

Hoskins and Eckel in Dallas County, Cause No. 9508182C, on a sworn account in

1995 concerning Glenbrook Townhomes and obtained a default judgment. (CR

54). In 2007 both Hoskins and Eckel individually sued Allan Mobile Homes, Inc.,

and American Sportman’s Club in in Denton County, Cause No. 50056-367. (CR

55).

       Hoskins and Eckel filed special appearances and affidavits denying they had

committed any torts in Texas. (CR 31, 38). Hoskins and Eckel did not specifically

deny the allegations of prior business dealings in Texas or previous lawsuits or the

various allegations made by Ricco against Hoskins and Eckel in its Fourth

Amended Petition. (CR 31, 38). Hoskins and Eckel have been very active in Texas

since the 1990s through their various business holdings for which they maintain

directorships, presidencies, and shareholder status. (CR 54). Those businesses are

as follows:

       1. 1995 American Properties, LLC, Texas Limited Liability Company, both
          Hoskins and Eckel are officers. (CR 54).

       2. 1996 Glenbrook Management, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Hoskins and
                                          7
          Eckel are directors. (CR 54).

       3. 1996 Brentwood Management, Inc. Texas Corporation, Hoskins and
           Eckel are directors. (CR 54).

       4. 1997 Vista Ridge, Corporation and Ltd., organized in the State of Texas,
          Eckel and Hoskins are officers and directors. (CR 54).

       5. 1998 Timber Creek Management, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Eckel and
          Hoskins are officers and directors. (CR 54).

       6. 2014 Josey Lane Management, Inc., Texas Corporation, Hoskins is
          President, Eckel is Vice President. (CR 54).

       7. 2015 Landmakers, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Corporation, both
          Hoskins and Eckel are members. (CR 54).

       Therefore, due to their extensive activity in Texas, it would not be an undue

burden to litigate this case in Texas. Hoskins and Eckel have current real estate

holdings in Texas through American Properties (CR 5 ¶ 4, 5) and Landmakers,

LLC.

                                  PRAYER

       WHEREFORE, Appellee, Ricco prays that this Court sustain the Trial

Court’s finding that Christopher Hoskins and Dennis Eckel are subject to Texas’

jurisdiction. Appellee prays for any and all relief, in equity or at law, which it may

be entitled to receive.

                                                     Respectfully submitted,
                                                     /s/cheryldsmith
                                                     Cheryl D. Smith
                                                     State Bar No. 18552910
                                                     Law Office of Cheryl D. Smith
                                           8
                                                    6001 Bridge Street Suite 102
                                                    Fort Worth, Texas 76112
                                                    817-475-3034
                                                    817-288-0631 fax
                                                    Lawoffice76102@yahoo.com

                                                    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE


                          CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

   I, the undersigned attorney, hereby certify and represent to the Court that this

Appellee’s Brief includes 1981 words as the length of the document, with every

word and every part of the document counted, including headings, footnotes and

quotations. Parts of the document not included are the caption, identity of parties

and counsel, statement regarding oral argument, table of contents, index of

authorities, statement of the case, statement of issues presented, statement of

jurisdiction, statement of procedural history, signature, proof of service,

certification, certificate of compliance, and appendix as listed in Rule 9 of the TEX.

R. APP. P.

                                                    /s/cheryldsmith
                                                    Cheryl D. Smith




                                          9
                         CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      A true and correct copy of Appellee’s Brief was served on Appellant

according to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, this 20th day of October,

2015, by e-service through the Pro Doc e-Filing service.

                                                   /s/cheryldsmith
                                                   Cheryl D. Smith




                                        10
