Siskind v. Villa Foundation for Educ., Inc., C-976

Citation642 S.W.2d 434
Decision Date03 November 1982
Docket NumberNo. C-976,C-976
Parties8 Ed. Law Rep. 206 Jay S. SISKIND et al., Petitioners, v. The VILLA FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION, INC. et al., Respondents.
CourtSupreme Court of Texas

Byrnes, Myers, Adair, Campbell & Sinex, K. Ray Campbell, Houston, for petitioners.

Baker & Botts, David Randolph Smith, Houston, for respondents.

McGEE, Justice.

Petitioner, Jay Siskind, individually and as next friend of his minor son Marc, instituted this suit against Respondents, the Villa Foundation for Education, Inc. (Villa), Jeanette Steinbeck, Carman Coco, Scott Slocum, and Edward Beavel. Villa is an Arizona corporation which operates the Villa School in Toltec, Arizona. Steinbeck, Coco, Slocum, and Beavel are employees of the school and are all residents of Arizona. This is an appeal from an order sustaining Respondents' special appearance entered pursuant to Rule 120a, Tex.R.Civ.P. The trial court's dismissal of Siskind's suit for lack of personal jurisdiction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 624 S.W.2d 803. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals with respect to Villa and remand the cause for trial. As to the individual Respondents, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The issue in this case is whether Villa, Steinbeck, Coco, Slocum, and Beavel are amenable to suit in Texas. The resolution of this question turns on whether Villa and these individuals possess sufficient minimum contacts with Texas so as to satisfy the constitutional test of due process. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 10, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1947).

The Villa School's curriculum is designed to aid students who experience motivational problems in an ordinary school environment. A majority of the school's students are not Arizona residents, and a number of the students are Texans. Villa, moreover, solicits business in Texas by advertising in national publications which are circulated in Texas. 1 Villa also advertises in the El Paso, Houston and Lubbock telephone directories. 2 Villa, however, does not personally interview prospective students in Texas.

Mr. Siskind, a resident of Houston, learned of the Villa School through Childrens' Resource Information Service and various advertisements in National Geographic and Sunset magazines. In response to these advertisements, Siskind telephoned Villa and inquired about the possibility of enrolling Marc in the school. In accordance with its usual practice, Villa mailed Siskind an informational packet and an application for Marc's enrollment. Siskind completed the application and mailed it to Villa. After processing Marc's application, Villa mailed Siskind an enrollment contract. Siskind signed the contract in Texas and mailed it to Villa in Arizona, where it was signed and accepted by Villa. Marc was then enrolled for the remainder of the school year.

Prior to the commencement of the following academic year, Villa, again in accordance with its usual practice, mailed Siskind a form letter inviting him to re-enroll Marc. A new enrollment contract was enclosed along with this letter. Before signing and returning the contract to Villa, however, Siskind made two modifications. First, he deleted a provision stating that Arizona would be the exclusive forum for any disputes arising under the contract. Second, he altered a provision concerning tuition refunds; Marc's tuition would be refunded if Marc left the school during the school year and another student was subsequently enrolled in his place. Originally, the contract provided that Marc's tuition would not be refundable. As modified, this contract was signed and accepted by Villa in Arizona.

In November of 1979, Marc was expelled from school. Villa refused to refund his tuition, and Siskind filed suit in Houston, Texas. In his petition, Siskind alleged numerous causes of action, including breach of contract, misrepresentation, and violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. Sec. 17.41 et seq. According to Siskind, Villa advertises and represents by mail that it can help problem students; Villa then accepts these students and their tuition knowing they present dicipline problems, expels them based upon a fabricated excuse, and retains their tuition without providing the promised services. Siskind's allegations indicate that Steinbeck, Coco, Slocum, and Beavel are the principal actors in this conspiracy. 3 Service of process on all Respondents was accomplished pursuant to Texas' long arm statute, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 2031b. This case, however, does not involve questions concerning the literal reach of article 2031b, but only the constitutional question of minimum contacts.

In determining the constitutional reach of this state's jurisdiction over nonresidents who maintain only a single or few contacts with Texas, this Court applies a three-pronged test. U-Anchor Advertising, Inc. v. Burt, 553 S.W.2d 760 (Tex.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063, 98 S.Ct. 1235, 55 L.Ed.2d 763 (1978). In order to maintain jurisdiction over nonresidents such as Villa and the individual Respondents:

(1) the nonresident defendant or foreign corporation must purposefully do some act or consummate some transaction in the forum state; (2) the cause of action must arise from, or be connected with, such act or transaction; and (3) the assumption of jurisdiction by the forum state must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, consideration being given to the quality, nature, and extent of the activity in the forum state, the relative convenience of the parties, the benefits and protection of the laws of the forum state afforded the respective parties, and the basic equities of the situation.

O'Brien v. Lanpar Co., 399 S.W.2d 340, 342 (Tex.1966).

In our opinion, Villa's advertising activities satisfy the first prong of the O'Brien test. See Wilkerson v. Fortuna, Inc., 554 F.2d 745 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 939, 98 S.Ct. 430, 54 L.Ed.2d 299 (1977); Hardy v. Pioneer Parachute Co., 531 F.2d 193 (4th Cir.1976). Villa's decision to advertise in Texas telephone directories, in and of itself, is a sufficiently purposeful act that is done in Texas. In Hull v. Gamblin, 241 A.2d 739 (D.C.App.1968), for example, Hull's sole contact with Texas was a listing in the Amarillo telephone directory under the heading "Patent Searchers." The listing gave her District of Columbia address and phone number and advertised "Free Invention Protection." Upholding the trial court's enforcement of a Texas judgment rendered against Hull for fraud, the court reasoned:

Of her own choice and initiative, appellant advertised her services in a publication designed for general circulation in Texas. But for that advertisement, appellee might never have been in communication with appellant. All representations forming the basis of the suit were addressed to a Texas resident. All appellant's essential business purposes were carried out in Texas as fully as if she had been present in the state.

Id. at 743 (emphasis added). Considering Villa's advertising in conjunction with its practice of mailing informational packets, applications for admission, invitations to re-enroll, and enrollment contracts to Texas residents, it is apparent that Villa is affirmatively seeking business in Texas. Villa's solicitation of Texas business, consisting of representations made in Texas, is a purposeful act committed in Texas. Vencedor Manufacturing Co. v. Gougler Industries, Inc., 557 F.2d 886, 891 (1st Cir.1977).

There is also a connection between Villa's solicitation of business in Texas and Siskind's cause of action. Siskind's allegations of misrepresentation are based on Villa's advertisements and letters, as well as his telephone conversations with the school's personnel. Siskind, moreover, relied on Villa's representations in Texas. Read v. Cary, 615 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1981, no writ); Hoppenfeld v. Crook, 498 S.W.2d 52, 56 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.). See also Hull v. Gamblin, supra. If proven, these allegations would support a judgment in Siskind's favor under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. See Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. Sec. 17.46(a), (b)(5), (b)(7). Finally, there is a connection between Siskind's claim for breach of contract and Villa's contacts with Texas. Siskind alleged that Villa's representations made to him in Texas induced him to enter a contract which was partially executed in Texas.

Villa cites numerous cases which stand for the proposition that a contract which is negotiated by mail with a resident of the forum cannot support the exercise of in personam jurisdiction when the contract is to be performed in another state. E.g., Barnstone v. Congregation Am...

To continue reading

Request your trial
168 cases
  • Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 2 Marzo 2007
    ...availment in a similar case concerning an out-of-state school that sent information to a Texas individual upon his request. Siskind, 642 S.W.2d at 435. In Siskind, we held that an exercise of personal jurisdiction was proper over a school for troubled children located in Arizona. Id. at 435......
  • Shapolsky v Brewton
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 28 Junio 2001
    ...Hotel Partners v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 847 S.W.2d 630, 634 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1993, writ denied) (citing Siskind v. Villa Found. for Educ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434, 438 (Tex. 1982)). 6. The fiduciary shield doctrine provides that corporate officers are not subject to jurisdiction in a foreign fo......
  • Adams v. John M. O'Quinn & Assocs., PLLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • 21 Marzo 2017
    ...Servs., Inc. v. Wireless Toyz Franchise, LLC, 255 F. App'x 775, 794 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (citing Siskind v. Villa Found. for Educ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434, 437-38 (Tex. 1982)). Although the fiduciary shield doctrine could "prohibit this [C]ourt from ascribing acts of [the O'Quinn Firm......
  • Michiana Easy Livin' Country v. Holten
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 2 Septiembre 2005
    ...S.Ct. 2174. 35. 326 U.S. 310, 313-14, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). 36. Id. at 320, 66 S.Ct. 154. 37. Siskind v. Villa Found. for Educ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434, 436 (Tex.1982). 38. Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton, 699 S.W.2d 199, 201 (Tex.1985) (per curiam). 39. See, e.g., Reiff v. Roy,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas DTPA Forms & Practice
    • 31 Marzo 2016
    ...580 S.W.2d 24, 28 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1970, writ ref’d n.r.e.), §5.16 Siskind v. Villa Foundation for Education, Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1982), §5.08 Smith v. Baldwin , 611 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. 1980), §§1.02.8,,,, 2.02, 6.06, 10.01.1, 10.03, 10.2......
  • Civil Litigation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Small-firm Practice Tools. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • 5 Mayo 2022
    ...sufficient contacts with Texas so as to satisfy the constitutional test of due process. Siskind v. Villa Foundation for Educ ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434 (Tex.1982). To satisfy that constitutional test, the following elements must exist: (1) the nonresident must purposefully do some act or consu......
  • Plaintiff's Pleadings
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas DTPA Forms & Practice
    • 31 Marzo 2016” requirement. Zac Smith & Co. v. Otis Elevator Co., 734 S.W.2d 662 (Tex. 1987); Siskind v. Villa Foundation for Education, Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1982); O’Brien v. Lanpar Co., 399 S.W.2d 340 (Tex. 1966). Because of the breadth of the reach of the long-arm statute, Texas has a s......
  • Consumer Protection and Fair Trade Practices
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Small-firm Practice Tools. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • 5 Mayo 2022
    ...may be subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas for deceptive trade practices in Texas. [ Siskind v. Villa Found. for Educ. , 642 S.W.2d 434, 438 (Tex. 1982) (an Arizona school possessed sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to satisfy constitutional test of due process with regard to par......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT