2004)
HOFFMANN v. DANDURAND
143 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. App. 2004)
David H. HOFFMANN, Appellant, v.
Jeff DANDURAND, Appellee.
No. 05-03-01396-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District,
Dallas.
September 1, 2004.
Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Collin
County, John Barry, J. *556
D. Kevin McCorkindale, Kasselman McCorkindale,
P.C., Plano, for Appellant.
Ashley E. Frizzell, Diana L. Faust, Gordon K. Wright,
Cooper Scully, P.C., Dallas, for Appellee.
Before Justices MOSELEY, BRIDGES, and LANGMIERS.
OPINION
Opinion by Justice LANG-MIERS.
1
In this interlocutory appeal, David H. Hoffmann appeals an order denying his special appearance in a suit
brought by Jeff Dandurand. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code
Ann. 51.014(a)(7) (Vernon Supp. 2004 05). Hoffmann presents three issues generally contending that
his special appearance should have been granted by
the trial court. Hoffmann argues that the trial court
erred in ruling that it had specific and general jurisdiction over him. He also argues that the exercise of per-
casetext.com/case/hoffmann-v-dandurand-1
1 of 5
submitted his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the trial court. On October 15, 2002,
the trial court signed its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Associated with Special Appearance of
3
David H. Hoffman. *558 The trial court made the following findings of fact:
2. Dandurand's proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law submitted on September
30, 2003, were not included in the record on
appeal.
3. The trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law spell Hoffmann's name with only
one "n." Under the doctrine of idem sonans, if
the name spelled in a legal document is different from the correct spelling, but when the
commonly pronounced sounds are practically
identical to the correctly spelled name, then
the variant orthography is immaterial. Bosse v.
Cadwallader, 86 Tex. 336, 342, 24 S.W. 798,
800 (1894). See also Westcliffe, Inc. v. Bear Creek
Constr., Ltd.,105 S.W.3d 286, 291 (Tex.App.Dallas 2003, no pet.).
casetext.com/case/hoffmann-v-dandurand-1
2 of 5
walk International, Inc. and dismissed it from the lawsuit. On October 24, 2003, Hoffmann filed his request
for the trial court to amend its findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The trial court denied Hoffman's
request for amended findings of fact and conclusions
of law on October 26, 2003. On October 28, 2003,
Dandurand filed his request for additional findings of
fact and conclusions of law requesting that the trial
court enter the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law that he previously submitted on Sep5
tember 30, 2003. There is no order on Dandurand's
Request for Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the record. Hoffmann appeals the trial
court's denial of his special appearance.
5. Exhibit A of Dandurand's Request for Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law was not included in the record on appeal.
Applicable Law
In Texas, a party to a lawsuit may object to a trial
court's jurisdiction over him by filing a special appearance. Tex.R. Civ. P. 120a(1). A challenge to personal jurisdiction by special appearance, which is a dilatory plea, almost always requires consideration of evidence. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue,34 S.W.3d 547, 555
casetext.com/case/hoffmann-v-dandurand-1
3 of 5
make additional findings of fact that are unsupported in the record or that are contrary to other previous findings. Tillery Tillery v. Zurich Ins. Co., 54 S.W.3d
casetext.com/case/hoffmann-v-dandurand-1
4 of 5
casetext.com/case/hoffmann-v-dandurand-1
5 of 5