Skip to content
  • Latest
2024 Success Stories
  • Call Today: 310.444.9060
  • Probate Services
    ▼
    • Trust & Will Disputes
    • Fiduciary Misconduct
    • Property Disputes
    • Elder Financial Abuse
    • Trust & Estate Administration
    • Conservatorship
    • Guardianship
    • Probate Appeals
  • Who We Help
    ▼
    • Executor / Administrator
    • Trustee
    • Beneficiary
    • Spouse
    • Power of Attorney
    • Conservator
    • Guardian
    • Creditor
  • Our Firm
    ▼
    • Attorneys
    • Staff
    • Careers
    • 10th Anniversary
  • Learn
    ▼
    • Blog
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletters
    • Testimonials
    • Whitepapers
  • Request a Consultation
  • Probate Services
    • Trust & Will Disputes
    • Fiduciary Misconduct
    • Property Disputes
    • Elder Financial Abuse
    • Trust & Estate Administration
    • Conservatorship
    • Guardianship
    • Probate Appeals
  • Who We Help
    • Executor / Administrator
    • Trustee
    • Beneficiary
    • Spouse
    • Power of Attorney
    • Conservator
    • Guardian
    • Creditor
  • Our Firm
    • Attorneys
    • Staff
    • Careers
    • 10th Anniversary
  • Learn
    • Blog
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletters
    • Testimonials
    • Whitepapers
  • Request a Consultation
  • Probate Services
    • Trust & Will Disputes
    • Fiduciary Misconduct
    • Property Disputes
    • Elder Financial Abuse
    • Trust & Estate Administration
    • Conservatorship
    • Guardianship
    • Probate Appeals
  • Who We Help
    • Executor / Administrator
    • Trustee
    • Beneficiary
    • Spouse
    • Power of Attorney
    • Conservator
    • Guardian
    • Creditor
  • Our Firm
    • Attorneys
    • Staff
    • Careers
    • 10th Anniversary
  • Learn
    • Blog
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletters
    • Testimonials
    • Whitepapers
  • Request a Consultation

Home » Blog » Non-Resident Trustees and Beneficiaries Beware! A Trustee’s Relocation to Idaho Did Not Escape California’s Jurisdiction Laws

Last Updated: April 24, 2024

Non-Resident Trustees and Beneficiaries Beware! A Trustee’s Relocation to Idaho Did Not Escape California’s Jurisdiction Laws

Non-resident trustees be warned: If a trust calls for the application of California law, holds California assets, and, at least historically, was administered in the State of California, be prepared to potentially have to defend litigation in California, even if you are non-resident trustee fully living outside of the state.

Indeed, California courts have the authority to decide claims involving contested issues of trust administration against non-resident trustees, so long as the trustee passes California’s three-pronged minimum contacts test, which will be discussed in this article.

A trustee need not physically enter California to be subject to California’s personal jurisdiction statutes. In other words, a non-resident trustee cannot “undo” their ties to California simply by moving to another state.

Search

In the recent appellate case Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk,[1] the California Court of Appeal, Second District, held that the trial court’s ruling in a trust litigation matter, which approved a non-resident trustee’s motion to dismiss a claim for lack of personal jurisdiction, was erroneous because key parties (including the trustee), who lived out of state and were opposed to personal jurisdiction in California, all had ample connections to the State of California.

Which Factors Helped Establish the Defendants’ Personal Jurisdiction in California?

Ellen Van Buskirk (“Ellen”) and her husband created a revocable living trust in California (which was subject to California law) in the year 2005. Ellen survived her husband and became the sole trustor, trustee and beneficiary of the trust. Ellen’s son, daughters, and brother were appointed as successor trustees. Ellen handled trust administration in California from 2005 to 2016, with occasional help from her brother.

According to Ellen’s son Walter Van Buskirk III (“Walter”), in September 2016, his sisters (Ellen’s daughters) conspired to kidnap Ellen from a rehabilitation facility in California and relocate her to Idaho, where they lived. When Walter tried to visit Ellen in Idaho, his sisters blocked his visits with threats of violence. Consequently, Ellen’s actions since September 2016 presumably cut Walter out of her trust by selling some of the trust’s real estate assets in California at “fire sale prices.”

TELL US WHAT HAPPENED. WE’LL BE IN TOUCH SOON.

Ellen, her daughters and her brother told a different story. They claimed Walter was a ne’er-do-well who lived off the family’s wealth and that Ellen had left California of her own free will to escape Walter and the abusive living situation in which he had placed her. Additionally, they claimed that Ellen could make independent financial decisions, including the decision to disinherit her son and sell trust property.

Notably, after moving to Idaho, Ellen had filed four lawsuits in California, including an action to evict Walter from the former family home in Santa Monica.

Walter opposed Ellen’s most recent real estate transactions, filing a lawsuit in the probate department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court claiming that the transactions impaired his interest in the trust, and consequently, constituted trustee misconduct. Walter was seeking a trust accounting and removal of the trustee (his mother Ellen) on the basis of the trustee having allegedly committed a breach of fiduciary duty.

Ellen Seeks to Quash Walter’s Action by Filing a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Ellen argued that from 2016 to 2017 she had made “critical changes” to the trust, which had effectively cut all ties to California. More specifically, she had amended the trust to remove Walter as a beneficiary, registered the trust in Idaho and sold/transferred most of the trust’s California assets, such that most of the trust’s current assets (almost 40 trust properties and all trust bank accounts) were now in Idaho, where she had been residing with her daughters.

The trial court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Ellen, her daughters and her brother, finding that Walter had failed to establish their minimum contacts with California.

Court of Appeal Finds Ample Connections to California Using a Minimum Contacts Test

The Court of Appeal had a different opinion, ruling that Ellen, her daughters and her brother did meet the requirements of the minimum contacts test. Despite Ellen’s concerted efforts to escape personal jurisdiction in California, the Court of Appeal found these parties to have ample connections to California. It reversed the trial court’s dismissal, claiming that Walter’s California trust action should not have been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. California personal jurisdiction statutes are the same for civil and trust proceedings.[2] Jurisdiction is proper if a defendant has minimum contacts with the state, such that the lawsuit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.[3] Personal jurisdiction in California can be all-purpose or case-linked jurisdiction. With case-linked jurisdiction, the court may adjudicate only those disputes relating to a defendant’s contacts with the forum.[4] As previously mentioned, a three-pronged minimum contacts test governs case-linked jurisdiction, so the Van Buskirk Court analyzed the facts of its case through the lens of this test. Case-linked jurisdiction is proper when: (1) defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the forum state’s benefits; (2) the controversy relates to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice.[5]

Ellen’s Connections to California

The court found that Ellen, her daughters and brother all were deeply involved with the trust, which was the epicenter of this family’s wealth. Additionally, the trust was created and administered in California for nearly 11 years.

In fact, Ellen’s connections with California overwhelmingly satisfied the first prong of the minimum contacts test for case-linked jurisdiction – namely, Ellen’s purposeful availment of California benefits. Defendants purposefully avail themselves of a forum’s benefits if they intentionally direct their activities at a forum in such a manner that, by virtue of the benefit, the defendants receive from the forum state. When a defendant’s activities satisfy this criteria, the defendant should reasonably expect to be subject to jurisdiction in the forum state.[6]

Ellen was a longtime California resident, a California property owner,  and she had administered the trust in California from 2005 to 2016. Moreover, Ellen explicitly had chosen California law to govern the trust, which held multiple interests in California real estate.

Upon leaving California, Ellen continued to reap the benefits of the forum state by filing four lawsuits in California, some of which involved trust property. Finally, Ellen, while residing outside of the state, continued to engage in financial transactions to try to rid the trust of its California real estate. Ellen had purposefully availed herself of California’s benefits beyond question.

The Daughters’ Connections to California

The court found the daughters’ connections to California similarly satisfied the purposeful availment prong of the minimum contacts test for case-linked jurisdiction.

The daughters were successor beneficiaries and trustees of the trust, who participated in trust transactions, and who physically came to California to “move” Ellen to Idaho. The court repeatedly chose not to comment on the issue of whether Ellen’s relocation from California to Idaho was proper or in her best interest. Rather, the key point in the court’s jurisdictional analysis was simply that the daughters chose to come to California to accomplish goals that were important to them (i.e., to relocate their mother out of state) and directly related to the trust dispute that had been filed by Walter in California.

The Brother’s Connections to California

The connections of Ellen’s brother to California also satisfied the purposeful availment prong of the minimum contacts test for case-linked jurisdiction.

Ellen’s brother had a role in managing the trust, which originated in California, was governed by California law and held interests in California real estate. He also participated in the trust’s real estate transactions in California and assisted in moving Ellen from California to Idaho.

Are Walter’s Claims Sufficiently Related to the Parties’ Contacts With California?

To establish personal jurisdiction in California, a substantial connection between the defendant’s forum activities and the controversy must exist.[7] Here, Walter’s claims did relate to Ellen, her daughters’ and brother’s contacts with California because these defendants were all connected to California through the trust, and the trust was the central topic of his lawsuit. For the reasons set forth above, the trust itself was inextricably tied to California.

Is Exercising California’s Jurisdiction Laws Fair in This Context?

In assessing fairness, the court considers the burden on the defendants, California’s interest in hearing the dispute, the petitioner’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, judicial economy, and the state’s shared interest in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.[8] To defeat California’s jurisdiction code, Ellen would have had to successfully argue that exercising personal jurisdiction in California was unreasonable.[9]

Ellen, her daughters and brother instead argued that Ellen was elderly and suffering from several health issues, that one of her daughters was undergoing cancer treatment, and that traveling to California would have been a hardship for them. The court, however, found that it was fair to exercise personal jurisdiction in California because Walter had a valid interest in obtaining relief in California from the sale of trust real estate located in California, and because Ellen had been well enough to litigate in four previous (and recent) California lawsuits. The court also noted that the advent of remote technology allows courts considerable flexibility to hear testimony from witnesses who are unable to be physically present in the courtroom.

Key Takeaway: Current State of Residence Is Not the Only Factor Determining Personal Jurisdiction in California

Let this case be a lesson to practitioners to not swiftly turn away potential clients inquiring about a trust dispute in which the trustee and other key parties reside out of state.

As illustrated by the court’s holding in Van Buskirk, the question of whether a court has personal jurisdiction over certain parties to a trust dispute may require a fact-intensive analysis, including a review of the trust instrument itself and the history of past trust administration.

Given the complexity of family dynamics (which often involve parties and issues that span across several states), this case offers a clear lens through which practitioners can analyze and potentially apply California’s personal jurisdiction statutes to future trust disputes.

Sources
  • [1] (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 523.
  • [2] Prob. C. §17004 (the court may exercise jurisdiction in proceedings under this division on any basis permitted by Section 410.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.)
  • [3] Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 126.
  • [4] Bristol Meyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty., et. al. (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1773.
  • [5] Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.App.4th 262, 269.
  • [6] Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462.
  • [7] Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods Inc. (1996)14 Cal.4th 434.
  • [8] Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 477; Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 448.
  • [9] The petitioner bringing a trust action has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. The burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable. See Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Industrial Co. Ltd. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 543.
Share Post
PrevPreviousWhat Are the Creditor Rights of a Decedent’s Creditors?
Read NextPartner Lindsey Munyer Co-Hosts New Los Angeles EPGN GroupNext
Related Articles
Defeating a Spendthrift Trust Keystone Helps Make New Law in Blech v. Blech-min
2020 Newsletters
Read More
KeystoneLaw_2021_Newsletters
2021 Newsletters
Read More
Wooden,Judge,Gavel,And,Numbers,2022
2022 Newsletters
Read More
Subscribe to The Keystone Quarterly  

Stay up to date with the latest news in the exciting world of probate law through our quarterly newsletter, The Keystone Quarterly. 

Each issue provides insight into the latest probate developments, delves into some of Keystone’s more interesting cases, and gives important updates about our firm. The Keystone Quarterly is a must-read for attorneys and clients alike.

Linkedin Instagram Facebook
Contact
  • 11300 West Olympic Blvd.
    Suite 910
    Los Angeles, CA 90064
  • 310.444.9060
Contact Us
Linkedin Instagram Facebook
Company
  • Our Firm
  • Attorneys
  • Staff
  • Careers
  • 10th Anniversary
Probate Services
  • Trust & Will Disputes
  • Fiduciary Misconduct
  • Property Disputes
  • Elder Financial Abuse
  • Trust & Estate Administration
  • Conservatorship
  • Guardianship
  • Probate Appeals
Who We Help
  • Executor / Administrator
  • Trustee
  • Beneficiary
  • Spouse
  • Power of Attorney
  • Conservator
  • Guardian
  • Creditor
Learn
  • Blog
  • Case Studies
  • Newsletters
  • Testimonials
  • Whitepapers
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Sitemap
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Sitemap

©2025 Keystone Law Group, P.C. All rights reserved.

This website is for general information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. Connection to this website, and communication to this law firm via email or other electronic transmission do not constitute an attorney-client relationship with Keystone Law Group, P.C. unless a separate written agreement is signed by you and Keystone Law Group, P.C. as to the nature of any relationship and the amount to be charged for the intended legal services.

Manage Cookie Consent
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show personalized ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}