## Facts

- Husband was the president and sole owner of Starkey Laboratories, a Minnesota corporation.
- Wife met husband in Oregon, moved to Minnesota to work for Starkey, and the couple later formalized their marriage in Minnesota.
- The couple’s principal residence during the marriage was Minnesota; they also owned a home in California.
- Neither spouse ever resided in Texas; their Texas visits were limited and business-related.
- The parties separated in 1992; wife remained in California while husband moved to Texas.
- Wife filed for divorce in California first but served husband months later; husband filed for divorce in Texas after becoming eligible under Texas residency rules and promptly served wife.
- Wife entered a special appearance in Texas challenging in personam jurisdiction and alternatively requested application of Minnesota law to property division (including appreciation in husband’s Starkey stock).
- The trial court denied the special appearance and entered a decree applying Texas law, including characterizing appreciation in Starkey stock as husband’s separate property; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Texas courts had in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident spouse who never lived in Texas and had only minimal, sporadic contacts with the state.
2. If personal jurisdiction was lacking, whether the Texas court could nonetheless enter a binding division of the marital estate, including property located outside Texas.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed.
- The court held Texas lacked in personam jurisdiction over the wife because her own contacts with Texas did not show purposeful availment.
- The husband’s unilateral move to Texas and relocation of financial documents and accounts to Texas could not create jurisdiction over the wife.
- Without personal jurisdiction over the wife, the trial court lacked authority to adjudicate and bind her property rights through a comprehensive marital property division.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the absence of personal jurisdiction (while recognizing that a Texas court may have limited authority over property located in Texas and may adjudicate marital status based on domicile).

## Legal Principles

- Personal jurisdiction over a nonresident requires minimum contacts created by the defendant’s own purposeful conduct directed at the forum, such that being sued there is reasonably foreseeable.
- Unilateral activity of another party, including a spouse’s post-separation relocation to the forum, cannot supply the required contacts for personal jurisdiction.
- A court may dissolve the marital status of a domiciled spouse without personal jurisdiction over the nonresident spouse, but it cannot impose binding personal obligations or adjudicate the nonresident spouse’s property rights without in personam jurisdiction.
- Comprehensive division of marital property—especially property outside the forum—requires personal jurisdiction over the affected spouse.

## Conclusion

Texas could grant a status divorce based on the husband’s Texas domicile, but it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the nonresident wife or enter a binding marital property division affecting her rights absent her purposeful forum contacts.


Dawson-Austin v. Austin, 968 S.W.2d 319 (Tex. 1998)