Bhavin Shah v. HMC RFG Investors LLC, 05-25-00894-CV, October 06, 2026.
On appeal from 192nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Synopsis
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a authorizes a trial court deciding a special appearance to consider affidavits filed by the parties, even though an affidavit ordinarily constitutes hearsay under Texas Rules of Evidence 801 and 802. The Dallas Court of Appeals therefore held that admitting the challenged affidavit over a hearsay objection was not an abuse of discretion, while separately concluding that any error in admitting its attachments was harmless.
Relevance to Family Law
Special appearances arise in family-law cases when a party seeks personal relief against a nonresident spouse, parent, former partner, business owner, trustee, or other third party. The issue may surface in divorce proceedings involving out-of-state property or entities, SAPCR proceedings seeking support or other personal obligations, enforcement actions against nonresidents, and post-divorce disputes over contractual or monetary relief.
Shah gives family-law litigators an important evidentiary rule for those proceedings: a Rule 120a affidavit is not excluded merely because the affidavit itself is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth. But the decision should not be read as insulating everything attached to an affidavit. Counsel must separately address authentication, personal knowledge, competency, and the admissibility or harmlessness of exhibits and embedded materials.
Family Law Crossover
Rule 120a establishes a specialized procedure for determining whether a Texas court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. The court decides the special appearance using the pleadings, stipulations, party-filed affidavits and attachments, discovery, and any oral testimony presented at the hearing. Under Shah, Rule 120a’s express authorization to consider affidavits permits the trial court to consider a properly filed affidavit notwithstanding a hearsay objection directed to the affidavit as a whole.
In family litigation, the mechanism can arise when a Texas resident seeks personal orders against an out-of-state spouse or parent, joins a nonresident entity in a marital-property dispute, pursues a nonresident recipient of an allegedly improper property transfer, or seeks enforcement of an obligation against someone outside Texas. Counsel should distinguish personal jurisdiction from subject-matter jurisdiction. For example, the UCCJEA may govern a Texas court’s authority to make a child-custody determination, while personal jurisdiction questions may separately affect support, fees, damages, property, or other personal obligations.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
HMC RFG Investors LLC invested $1.25 million in Roots Food Group Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dallas County. HMC later sued numerous defendants, including Florida resident Bhavin Shah, based on an alleged series of transactions involving the transfer of assets, the creation of debt, and the transfer of control over related business entities. By the time of the appeal, HMC had abandoned its other claims against Shah and continued to pursue claims for tortious interference with contract and civil conspiracy.
Shah filed a special appearance and a supplemental special appearance challenging the Texas court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction. HMC opposed the special appearance and submitted an affidavit from Robert T. Jones. Shah objected that the affidavit and its attachments were hearsay, lacked authentication, and were not based on personal knowledge.
The trial court overruled the objections and denied Shah’s special appearance. It did not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shah pursued an accelerated interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(a)(7) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
Issues Decided
The Fifth Court of Appeals addressed the following issues:
- Whether Rule 120a permitted the trial court to consider Jones’s affidavit despite Shah’s hearsay objection under Texas Rules of Evidence 801 and 802.
- Whether the admission of the affidavit’s attachments required reversal.
- Whether the affidavit was properly authenticated.
- Whether Shah adequately presented his challenge to the affiant’s personal knowledge.
- Whether the trial court could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Shah consistently with federal and Texas due-process requirements.
Rules Applied
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a provides the procedural framework for challenging personal jurisdiction through a special appearance. The rule authorizes the trial court to determine the special appearance based on the pleadings, stipulations, party-filed affidavits and attachments, discovery, and oral testimony.
Texas Rules of Evidence 801 and 802 define hearsay and generally prohibit its admission unless a statute, rule, or exception permits consideration of the evidence. Relying on LG Chem America, Inc. v. Zapata, the court concluded that Rule 120a supplies the necessary authorization for a trial court to consider affidavits filed in a special-appearance proceeding.
The court also applied Texas Rule of Evidence 902(8), under which a document accompanied by a lawfully executed notarial acknowledgment is self-authenticating. A separate sponsoring witness was therefore unnecessary to authenticate the notarized affidavit itself.
Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Even when a ruling is erroneous, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.1 requires the appellant to establish that the error probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment or order.
Finally, the existence of personal jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. When the trial court issues no findings and the record contains supporting evidence, appellate courts imply the findings necessary to support the ruling, subject to an appropriate sufficiency challenge.
Application
Shah argued that Jones’s affidavit was inadmissible hearsay and that the agency-based exclusion in Texas Rule of Evidence 801(e)(2)(D) did not apply. According to Shah, Jones was not Shah’s agent or employee, and the affidavit was being offered against Shah rather than Jones.
The court did not need to decide whether the affidavit qualified as an opposing-party statement under Rule 801(e)(2)(D). Instead, it applied the more direct procedural rule recognized in LG Chem America. Although an affidavit ordinarily would be hearsay, Rule 120a expressly permits trial courts to consider affidavits filed by the parties when deciding a special appearance. The hearsay objection to the affidavit as a whole therefore did not establish an abuse of discretion.
The attachments required a different analysis. Rather than holding categorically that Rule 120a cured every objection to every attachment, the court assumed without deciding that admitting the attachments might have been erroneous. It nevertheless held that any error was harmless because the affidavit itself supplied sufficient evidence to support HMC’s jurisdictional allegations and the trial court’s ruling. Shah consequently failed to show that the attachments probably caused the rendition of an improper order.
Shah also argued that the affidavit failed to demonstrate Jones’s personal knowledge. The affidavit stated that Jones had personal knowledge of its contents and that its statements were true and correct. The court concluded that Shah had not supported his contrary assertion with developed argument and legal authority. The court declined to construct that appellate argument for him.
On authentication, the affidavit was notarized. Because Rule 902(8) treats a properly acknowledged document as self-authenticating, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling the authentication objection.
After resolving the evidentiary issue, the court considered personal jurisdiction. HMC relied on specific jurisdiction on appeal, and the court concluded that the jurisdictional evidence supported the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Shah with respect to the remaining claims. The appellate court therefore affirmed the denial of the special appearance.
Holding
Rule 120a authorizes a trial court to consider affidavits filed by the parties in a special-appearance proceeding despite the general prohibition against hearsay. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling the hearsay objection to Jones’s affidavit.
The court did not decide whether every attachment to the affidavit was independently admissible. Any error in admitting the attachments was harmless because the affidavit itself provided sufficient support for the jurisdictional ruling.
The notarized affidavit was self-authenticating under Texas Rule of Evidence 902(8). The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Shah’s authentication objection.
Shah did not adequately brief his challenge to the affiant’s personal knowledge. The affidavit expressly asserted personal knowledge, and the appellate court would not supply the legal research and analysis missing from Shah’s argument.
Finally, the court held that the record supported specific personal jurisdiction over Shah. It affirmed the order denying his special appearance.
Practical Application
For family-law litigators, Shah makes the affidavit a central vehicle for proving or negating jurisdictional facts under Rule 120a. A nonresident spouse or parent can use an affidavit to negate pleaded jurisdictional allegations, while the party invoking jurisdiction can respond with an affidavit establishing Texas-directed contacts and the connection between those contacts and the requested relief.
The affidavit should identify specific jurisdictional facts rather than merely state that the defendant has “minimum contacts” with Texas. Depending on the case, relevant facts may include communications directed to Texas, agreements negotiated or performed in Texas, Texas property transactions, business activities involving a marital estate, travel to Texas connected with the dispute, or conduct directed toward a person or entity in Texas.
Counsel should avoid treating Shah as a universal solution to evidentiary defects. The holding addresses the hearsay character of a party-filed Rule 120a affidavit. It does not eliminate the need to establish that the affiant is competent, has personal knowledge, and states concrete facts rather than legal conclusions. Nor does it necessarily make every email, financial record, screenshot, business record, or third-party declaration attached to the affidavit admissible.
In a divorce involving out-of-state entities, counsel should use affidavits to connect each joined party’s own Texas contacts to the particular property or liability claim. Ownership of an entity, affiliation with a spouse, or participation in a multistate transaction may not alone establish specific jurisdiction. The evidence should show both purposeful Texas contacts and a substantial connection between those contacts and the operative claims.
In a SAPCR or enforcement proceeding, counsel should first identify the precise jurisdictional framework. Subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, personal jurisdiction for child support under UIFSA, and personal jurisdiction for fees, sanctions, reimbursement, or other monetary relief are distinct inquiries. Rule 120a evidence should be tailored to the particular form of relief for which personal jurisdiction is required.
Finally, preserve objections with precision. An objection that the affidavit itself is hearsay may fail under Shah, but targeted objections to lack of personal knowledge, conclusory statements, unauthenticated attachments, or inadmissible material within an exhibit may still matter. If challenged evidence is cumulative of an admissible affidavit, the appellant also must confront harmless-error principles.
Checklists
Preparing a Rule 120a Affidavit
- Identify each jurisdictional allegation in the live pleading.
- Address the defendant’s Texas contacts individually and specifically.
- State whether each fact is based on the affiant’s personal knowledge.
- Explain how the affiant acquired that knowledge.
- Use concrete dates, communications, transactions, locations, and participants.
- Connect the Texas contacts to the claims and relief at issue.
- Avoid unsupported legal conclusions such as “purposeful availment” or “minimum contacts.”
- Execute the affidavit before an authorized notary or use an appropriate unsworn declaration.
- File and serve the affidavit in compliance with Rule 120a’s timing requirements.
- Confirm that the affidavit addresses the operative pleading and the claims remaining at the time of the hearing.
Reviewing Attachments
- Authenticate each attachment independently when possible.
- Identify emails by sender, recipient, date, and manner of receipt.
- Lay the required predicate for business records.
- Explain how screenshots, text messages, or electronic communications were created or obtained.
- Determine whether statements within an attachment present additional hearsay layers.
- Consider whether a declaration from the record custodian or participant is necessary.
- Confirm that the attachment actually supports a jurisdictional fact.
- Redact protected information consistent with Texas filing rules.
- Do not assume Rule 120a makes every attached document admissible.
- Be prepared to show that the jurisdictional ruling stands even if a disputed attachment is excluded.
Objecting to the Opponent’s Evidence
- Avoid relying solely on a global hearsay objection to the affidavit.
- Separate objections to the affidavit from objections to its attachments.
- Identify statements that are conclusory or outside the affiant’s personal knowledge.
- Challenge failures to explain how the affiant learned the stated facts.
- Raise authentication objections separately for each disputed exhibit.
- Identify embedded hearsay and each additional hearsay layer.
- Obtain a clear ruling on each material objection.
- Explain why admission of the challenged evidence is harmful, not merely erroneous.
- Address whether the remaining unchallenged evidence independently supports jurisdiction.
- Preserve all arguments in the trial court before presenting them on appeal.
Building the Family-Law Jurisdiction Record
- Distinguish personal jurisdiction from subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Identify whether the UCCJEA, UIFSA, Rule 120a, or multiple jurisdictional frameworks apply.
- Separate status determinations from orders imposing personal or monetary obligations.
- Identify the nonresident’s own Texas contacts rather than relying exclusively on another person’s contacts.
- Tie each contact to the divorce, SAPCR, enforcement, property, or third-party claim at issue.
- Obtain jurisdictional discovery when the relevant facts are controlled by the nonresident.
- Consider depositions, requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for admission.
- Present the court with a claim-by-claim jurisdictional analysis.
- Request findings of fact and conclusions of law when procedurally available and strategically useful.
- Prepare the record with an accelerated interlocutory appeal in mind.
Protecting the Appellate Record
- Ensure the clerk’s record contains the live pleadings, special appearance, responses, affidavits, and exhibits.
- Arrange for a reporter’s record of the special-appearance hearing.
- Secure express rulings on evidentiary objections.
- Brief personal-knowledge objections with supporting authority and record citations.
- Challenge every independent ground that could support the trial court’s order.
- Analyze harmful error under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.1.
- Explain why the result would probably have changed without the challenged evidence.
- Account for implied findings when the trial court issues no findings and conclusions.
- Observe the accelerated timetable governing an interlocutory appeal from a special-appearance ruling.
Citation
Shah v. HMC RFG Investors LLC, No. 05-25-00894-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 6, 2026) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~a84c2ba4-9462-4361-b36f-b750e70fd20c~~
Share this content: