Discovering that someone is building a house on land you still own can turn a property dispute into a complicated legal battle, particularly when the sale appears to have been completed using someone else’s identity. In Texas, a couple found themselves in this situation after an individual allegedly impersonated them to transfer their vacant property to a company. The dispute eventually reached the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals, which considered whether a Colorado notary could be sued in Texas over his role in the disputed deed.In an opinion delivered on November 10, 2026, the appeals court reversed a lower court’s decision allowing claims against notary Skipton S Reynolds to proceed. The court ruled that Texas did not have personal jurisdiction over him because the notarial services at the centre of the negligence allegations had been performed in Colorado. The decision is available in Skipton S Reynolds v. Estella Martinez and Michael Martinez, and ABMF, LLC, on Justia.
How the disputed property transfer came to light
According to the court’s opinion, Estella and Michael Martinez owned a vacant lot in Bexar County, Texas. An unidentified woman allegedly impersonated the couple, listed their property for sale and arranged a purported transfer to ABMF, LLC. The disputed deed was dated January 11, 2023. It carried the notary certificate of Reynolds, a Colorado lawyer and notary. ABMF alleged that Reynolds notarised the document in Arapahoe County, Colorado. The deed was recorded in Bexar County the following day.The situation became apparent when Vena Homes, LLC began constructing a house on the property for ABMF. The Martinezes discovered the work and informed both ABMF and Vena Homes that they had never sold the land.Construction subsequently stopped. ABMF then gave the couple a quitclaim deed, a legal document transferring whatever ownership interest the grantor holds in a property to another party. The document returned the property to the Martinezes. However, the circumstances surrounding the original deed led to further litigation. The claims included allegations that Reynolds had notarised the document without properly confirming the identities of the individuals claiming to be the Martinezes.
Notary challenged the Texas court’s authority
Reynolds contested the lawsuit by filing what is known as a special appearance, a legal procedure through which an out-of-state defendant challenges a court’s personal jurisdiction over them. He argued that Texas courts did not have authority over him because the notarial services had been performed in Colorado. He also maintained that his notary credentials had been stolen and that someone had impersonated him.The 45th Judicial District Court of Bexar County rejected his jurisdictional challenge, allowing the claims against him to proceed. Reynolds then appealed that decision to the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals. The central question was whether his connection to the Texas property was sufficient for the state to exercise jurisdiction over him.
Why the appeals court dismissed the claims
In its November 10 opinion, the appeals court examined whether Reynolds had deliberately established sufficient connections with Texas to be sued there. ABMF argued that Reynolds had participated in a transaction involving Texas real estate by notarising a deed intended to transfer property in the state. It also maintained that the notarisation enabled the allegedly fraudulent transfer.The appeals court, however, distinguished between a person deliberately conducting business in Texas and someone providing a service outside the state for a transaction initiated by another individual. The judges noted that Reynolds had not been accused of soliciting the transaction or acquiring any ownership interest in the property. Although he allegedly knew that the deed concerned Texas land and would be used there, that knowledge alone did not establish that he had purposefully sought the benefits or protections of Texas law.The court also examined where the work underlying the negligence allegations had taken place. It found that the central issue was whether Reynolds had exercised reasonable care when verifying the identity of the person signing the deed. That notarial work had taken place entirely in Colorado.The judges concluded that the location of the Texas property and the intended use of the deed did not create a substantial enough connection between Reynolds’s activities in Texas and the specific allegations against him. Consequently, the court held that the requirements for exercising specific personal jurisdiction over him had not been met.
What the November 10 ruling means
The Texas Fourth Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s order denying Reynolds’s special appearance and rendered judgment dismissing the claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. The decision does not establish that the disputed deed was legitimate or that the alleged impersonation did not occur. It also does not amount to a finding that Reynolds properly verified the signer’s identity. Instead, the ruling addresses whether the claims against him could be heard in Texas.The case highlights the jurisdictional difficulties that can arise when a property transaction involves land in one state and professional services performed in another. Even when a disputed document concerns real estate in Texas, courts must separately determine whether the out-of-state professional has sufficient legal connections to the state to be sued there.
