Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
P. Chyba, Appellant
US Bank National Association, as Trustee for Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2005-AC6 Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-AC6, Appellee
Appeal from the 48th District Court Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 048-276121-14
Kerr, Pittman, and Birdwell, JJ.
Chyba, a non Texas resident, appeals pro se from the trial
court's order denying her special appearance.
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a. She challenges the trial
court's ruling on the merits, and she also contends that
the trial court's lack of response to her request for
findings of fact and conclusions of law precludes her from
properly presenting her appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.
44.4. We overrule her issues and affirm.
National Association, as Trustee for Bear Stearns Asset
Backed Securities I Trust 2005-AC6 Asset-Backed Certificates,
Series 2005-AC6 (US Bank), sued Chyba--the maker of a
purchase money loan for real property located in Grand
Prairie, Texas--to foreclose on the securing deed of trust
filed in the Tarrant County property records. Chyba, a non
Texas resident, filed two unverified special appearances, in
which she alleged that the trial court lacked jurisdiction
over her and that the suit instead belonged in federal court
for diversity jurisdiction. Chyba did not remove the case to
Chyba filed a third special appearance raising the same
issues, for which she later filed a "Verified Memorandum
of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant's
Special Appearance" and "Affidavit in Support of
Defendant's Special Appearance." The trial court
set the special appearance for determination on written
submission and denied it. Chyba appeals. See Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(7).
three issues, Chyba challenges (1) the trial court's
determination that it has personal jurisdiction over her, (2)
the lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law, and (3)
the trial court's jurisdiction over U.S. Bank. We affirm.
of Findings Not Fatal
second issue, which we will consider first, Chyba claims that
the trial court reversibly erred by failing to file findings
of fact and conclusions of law, preventing her from being
able to properly present her issues on appeal. See
Tex. R. App. P. 44.4.
Chyba timely filed a request for findings of fact and
conclusions of law and a notice of past due findings,
see Tex. R. Civ. P. 296, 297, the trial court was
not obligated to file them because its special appearance
ruling is an interlocutory order. See Tex. R. App.
P. 28.1(c); Simmons v. Boyd Gaming Corp., No.
09-16-00470-CV, 2017 WL 3298233, at *4-5 (Tex. App.--Beaumont
Aug. 3, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Waterman S.S.
Corp. v. Ruiz, 355 S.W.3d 387, 428 (Tex. App.--Houston
[1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (op. on reh'g);
Tempest Broad. Corp. v. Imlay, 150 S.W.3d 861,
868-69 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.);
Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Kwasnik, 109
S.W.3d 21, 26 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2003, no pet.); see
also IKB Indus. (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Pro-Line Corp., 938
S.W.2d 440, 442 (Tex. 1997) ("The purpose of Rule 296 is
to give a party a right to findings of fact and conclusions
of law finally adjudicated after a conventional trial on the
merits before the court. In other cases findings and
conclusions are proper, but a party is not entitled to
neither Chyba's special appearance affidavit and verified
memorandum nor U.S. Bank's response raises a disputed
fact issue. Chyba admits signing the note and deed of trust.
She argues that she has no contacts with Texas because she
signed the documents in California, because U.S. Bank is not
a Texas citizen and does not do business in Texas, and
because she did not have any contact with U.S. Bank. These
are legal arguments that we review de novo. See Kelly v.
Gen. Interior Constr., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653, 659 (Tex.
we overrule Chyba's second issue.
Court Properly Denied ...