Can a California Beneficiary Sue an Out-of-State Trustee in California Court

Bottom Line Up Front: Yes, in certain circumstances, a California trust beneficiary can sue an out-of-state trustee in a California court, even if the trustee has relocated to another state. The key is whether the out-of-state trustee had sufficient "minimum contacts" with California. A landmark California appellate case, Buskirk v. Buskirk (2020), expanded the reach of California's long-arm jurisdiction in trust disputes, making it easier for California beneficiaries to litigate closer to home.

Why Jurisdiction Matters in Trust Disputes

When a trustee moves out of California or when a trust involves parties living in multiple states, a threshold question arises before any dispute can be resolved: which state's court has the authority to hear the case?

As a general rule, trust litigation must be brought in the jurisdiction where the trustee resides. But California's "long-arm" statute (California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10) allows California courts to assert jurisdiction over out-of-state individuals when those individuals have sufficient connections to California. The Buskirk v. Buskirk decision meaningfully expanded how courts apply this statute in the trust litigation context.

The Three-Part Test for California Jurisdiction Over an Out-of-State Trustee

Before a California court can hear a case involving an out-of-state party, a three-part test must be satisfied. A California court has jurisdiction over an out-of-state trustee or beneficiary when:

1. The defendant purposefully availed themselves of California's benefits. This means they voluntarily took advantage of California's laws, courts, or economy in connection with the trust.
2. The dispute arises from or relates to those California contacts. The lawsuit must be connected to the defendant's activities in or ties to California.
3. Exercising jurisdiction is just and reasonable. The court weighs the burden on the defendant, California's interest in the dispute, the plaintiff's need for convenient relief, and judicial efficiency.

All three prongs must be satisfied. If they are, the California court has authority to hear the case regardless of where the trustee currently lives.

The Buskirk v. Buskirk Case: What Happened

Background

Ellen Van Buskirk and her husband created a revocable trust in 2005 in California, shortly before his death. Both were California residents, the trust was formed under California law, and it was funded primarily with California real estate. After her husband died, Ellen amended the trust to name her son Walter as first successor trustee and her twin daughters (both long-term Idaho residents) as second successor trustees.

The Dispute

What followed was, in the court's own words, a "blazing family dispute." Walter alleged that his sisters came to California and removed their elderly mother, taking her to Idaho. The sisters disputed this characterization entirely, claiming they removed Ellen from a dangerous situation created by Walter. Ellen stated she left voluntarily.

What is undisputed: Ellen permanently relocated to Idaho, registered the trust there, and subsequently amended the trust in ways that effectively cut Walter out as a beneficiary. Also undisputed is that after moving to Idaho, Ellen sold multiple pieces of California real estate held in the trust and filed at least three separate lawsuits in California courts involving trust-owned property, including an unlawful detainer action against Walter.

Walter's Claims

Walter filed suit in California court seeking removal of Ellen as trustee and challenging the involvement of the twin daughters and a Nevada-based family associate in the trust's administration. Ellen and the others moved to dismiss the case, arguing that jurisdiction belonged in Idaho- where Ellen resided, where the trust was registered, and where the daughters lived.

The Trial Court and the Reversal

The trial court agreed with Ellen and dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that the minimum contacts requirement had not been met. The California Court of Appeal reversed, finding that all three prongs of the jurisdiction test were satisfied.

How the Court Applied the Three-Part Test

Prong 1: Purposeful Availment of California's Benefits

The appellate court found that Ellen had spent her life in California, created a California trust, chosen California law to govern it, and funded it with California real property. Even after relocating to Idaho, she continued to avail herself of the California court system by filing multiple lawsuits here. The court described the trust as "embedded in California."

The daughters, as successor trustees and beneficiaries of a California-governed trust holding California assets, were also found to have purposefully availed themselves of California's benefits, particularly because their own agents physically traveled to California to bring about the events that triggered Walter's disinheritance.

Prong 2: The Controversy Relates to California Contacts

Walter's claims were directly tied to the parties' management of California trust assets and their conduct in California. The court had little difficulty finding this prong satisfied.

Prong 3: Jurisdiction Is Just and Reasonable

This is the most fact-specific part of the analysis. Ellen argued that litigating in California was unduly burdensome given her age and one daughter's illness. The court acknowledged these concerns but held they did not outweigh the strong California connections, and noted that modern technology and judicial accommodations can significantly reduce the practical burden of out-of-state litigation. The court also emphasized that Walter's counsel had agreed to enter into reasonable accommodations to ease the burden on the other parties.

What Buskirk Means for California Trust Beneficiaries

The Buskirk decision is significant because it broadly interprets California's long-arm statute in the trust context. Practically speaking, it means that a California beneficiary is not automatically forced to litigate in another state simply because a trustee has moved away, particularly where:

• The trust was created in California
• The trust is governed by California law
• The trust holds California real estate or other California-based assets
• The trustee previously conducted California trust business, filed California lawsuits, or otherwise engaged with California's legal system

This is an important protection for California beneficiaries who might otherwise face significant barriers to enforcing their rights when a trustee relocates.

Important Limitations: This Is Not an Open Door

Buskirk does not mean that California automatically has jurisdiction over every out-of-state trustee. The three-part minimum contacts test must still be satisfied in each individual case. A trustee who has genuinely severed all meaningful ties to California, and whose trust has no California assets, no California-based activity, and no California-law provisions, may successfully challenge California jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction questions can be complex, expensive to litigate, and potentially dispositive of an entire case. Filing in the wrong court can result in dismissal and wasted time and resources. Getting this question right at the outset is critical.

Frequently Asked Questions About California Jurisdiction in Trust Disputes

Q: If a trustee moves out of California, do I have to sue them in their new state?

A: Not necessarily. If the trustee had significant connections to California, you may be able to bring your claim in California under the Buskirk framework. A few examples would include if they created or funded a California trust, managed California assets, or used California courts. An attorney can evaluate whether the minimum contacts test is met in your specific situation.

Q: What if the trust document says California law applies but the trustee lives in another state?

A: A choice-of-law provision (specifying that California law governs the trust) is a relevant factor in the jurisdiction analysis, but it is not by itself sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state trustee. The broader minimum contacts analysis still applies.

Q: What if the trust holds California real estate but the trustee lives elsewhere?

A: The presence of California real estate in the trust is a strong factor in favor of California jurisdiction, particularly when the trustee has managed, sold, or litigated over that property. Buskirk specifically involved this scenario.

Q: Can the trustee argue that litigating in California is too burdensome?

A: Yes, and courts will consider that argument under the third prong of the jurisdiction test. However, as Buskirk demonstrates, age, illness, or distance alone are typically insufficient to defeat jurisdiction when the other California connections are strong. Courts regularly make accommodations, and modern technology has reduced many practical burdens of remote litigation.

Q: Should I consult an attorney before deciding where to file?

A: Absolutely. Jurisdiction decisions made at the outset of trust litigation can determine whether your case proceeds or gets dismissed. An experienced California trust litigation attorney can evaluate the facts, advise on the proper forum, and help you avoid costly procedural mistakes.

Fox Law: California Trust Litigation Attorneys

At Fox Law, our attorneys regularly handle complex trust disputes in California, including cases involving out-of-state trustees, multi-state trust assets, and jurisdictional questions like those addressed in Buskirk. We represent beneficiaries, trustees, and heirs throughout Northern California.

If you believe a trustee, whether in California or another state, has mismanaged a trust or violated your rights as a beneficiary, we can help you understand your legal options and the proper forum for your claims.

Contact Fox Law today for a no-cost consultation. We will make sure your case is filed in the right court and pursue the outcome you deserve.