The ‘Nexus’ Requirement: Shielding Out-of-State Spouses and Entities from Texas Jurisdiction in Divorce Litigation
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Gunn, 01-24-00435-CV, February 19, 2026.
On appeal from the 458th District Court of Fort Bend County.
Synopsis
The First Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting a special appearance in favor of a Michigan-based manufacturer, holding that specific jurisdiction requires a substantial nexus between a defendant’s purposeful contacts and the “operative facts” of the litigation. Despite the defendant sending employees to a Texas worksite for product repairs and undergoing site-wide safety training, these contacts were legally insufficient to anchor jurisdiction for a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident that was unrelated to the defendant’s specific business activities in the state.
Relevance to Family Law
In complex Texas divorce litigation, particularly those involving high-net-worth estates with out-of-state business interests or “alter ego” allegations, the “nexus” requirement is a critical shield. This holding reinforces that a non-resident entity’s presence in Texas for one discrete purpose—such as managing a specific asset or performing incidental administrative duties—does not open the door to general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction for unrelated claims. Family law practitioners can utilize this precedent to challenge the joinder of foreign trusts or closely held corporations where the entity’s Texas contacts (e.g., paying a single utility bill or repairing a piece of equipment) are not the “operative facts” underlying the characterization or division of the community estate.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The litigation arose from a motor vehicle accident at a solar power farm in Needville, Texas. The plaintiff, Charles Austin, was struck by a vehicle driven by Eric Padilla in the worksite parking lot. Austin sued several entities, including Extruded Aluminum Corp. (EAC), a Michigan-based company that manufactured aluminum brackets used in the solar racks. EAC’s connection to the site was limited: After being notified of defective wax lubricants on its brackets, EAC contracted with third-party staffing firms to repair the parts and sent two employees to Texas to oversee the remediation. Austin argued that because these EAC employees attended a site-wide safety orientation—which included “back-in” parking policies designed to prevent the very type of accident that occurred—EAC had purposefully availed itself of Texas and the claim “related to” those contacts. EAC filed a special appearance, asserting that its manufacture and repair of brackets had nothing to do with the parking lot accident.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether the trial court erred in granting EAC’s special appearance. Specifically, the court had to determine if Austin’s claims arose out of or related to EAC’s purposeful contacts with Texas, such that the exercise of specific jurisdiction comported with due process.
Rules Applied
The court applied the established framework for personal jurisdiction under the Texas long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Relying on BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG v. Shaik and LG Chem Am., Inc. v. Morgan, the court emphasized that specific jurisdiction requires a “claim-by-claim” analysis focusing on the relationship between the defendant, the forum, and the operative facts of the litigation. The court noted that while “related to” is a broader standard than “arises out of,” there must still be a substantial connection between the defendant’s forum-related activities and the controversy at hand.
Application
The court’s analysis centered on the lack of a nexus between EAC’s “Texas-focused activities” and the “operative facts” of the motor vehicle accident. The court noted that EAC’s purposeful contacts consisted of sending two employees to Texas to address defective aluminum brackets. While Austin attempted to bridge the gap by highlighting the safety training those employees received regarding parking policies, the court found this connection too attenuated. The legal story here is one of specific purpose versus incidental exposure. EAC was in Texas to fix brackets, not to manage site safety or parking logistics. The court reasoned that the operative facts of the litigation—how and why a driver ran over a pedestrian in a parking lot—did not involve EAC’s brackets or the conduct of its repair technicians. Consequently, the safety training was merely incidental to their presence for an unrelated business task, failing to create the “substantial connection” required for due process.
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting the special appearance. The court held that Austin failed to establish that his personal injury claim arose out of or related to EAC’s purposeful contacts with Texas.
The court further concluded that the mere presence of employees in the state and their participation in a general safety orientation did not subject their out-of-state employer to jurisdiction for a tort involving a different actor and a different set of circumstances.
Practical Application
For the family law litigator, this case serves as a strategic roadmap for defending against the joinder of out-of-state “business associates” or entities in a divorce. When a spouse attempts to join a foreign entity to a divorce action—perhaps alleging a breach of fiduciary duty or seeking to reach corporate assets—this case provides the ammunition to argue that even if the entity has some contacts with Texas, those contacts must be the “operative facts” of the specific claim. If the entity’s Texas activities involve unrelated business, a special appearance should be the first line of defense.
Checklists
Defeating Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Entities
- Identify the Core “Operative Facts”:
- Is the claim about property characterization, or a specific tort (e.g., fraud on the community)?
- Does the out-of-state entity’s Texas contact relate directly to that specific characterization or act?
- Isolate Incidental Contacts:
- Determine if the entity’s presence in Texas was for a discrete, unrelated task (e.g., repairing an asset vs. managing the estate).
- Catalog all Texas contacts and categorize them by their business purpose.
- Challenge the “Related To” Nexus:
- Argue that “but for” causation (e.g., “if they weren’t in Texas, they wouldn’t have been at the site”) is insufficient under Austin.
- Highlight the lack of control the entity had over the specific event (e.g., the entity didn’t set the policy or manage the actor involved).
Evidentiary Support for Special Appearances
- Affidavits from Quality/System Managers:
- Clearly state the limited scope of the entity’s Texas activities.
- Expressly disclaim involvement in the policies or actions that form the basis of the lawsuit.
- Contractual Limitations:
- Review purchase orders or service agreements to show the defendant was a “drop-shipper” or limited-service provider.
- Jurisdictional Discovery Focus:
- During depositions of corporate representatives, focus on the “purpose” of the visit to Texas to prove it was isolated from the operative facts of the litigation.
Citation
Austin v. Extruded Aluminum Corp., __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2026, no pet.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be weaponized in a Texas divorce when a petitioner attempts to “pierce the corporate veil” or bring a “waste” claim against an out-of-state entity. If the husband has a Michigan corporation that occasionally ships products to Texas, but the wife sues that corporation for conspiracy to hide marital assets, Austin allows the corporation to argue that its shipping contacts have no “nexus” to the alleged financial conspiracy. By strictly defining the “operative facts” of the litigation as the financial transactions in question, rather than the general business presence of the company, counsel can successfully dismiss the foreign entity, significantly complicating the petitioner’s discovery and recovery efforts.
~~d88da912-dc9d-49c6-a268-5f941edcc057~~
Share this content:
