Abromats v. Abromats, 0:16-cv-60653

Background

Gloria Abromats executed a Florida trust (Gloria Abromats Trust) in 2005; she died in 2015. Clifford is trustee and beneficiary; Philip is a Wyoming resident and a qualified beneficiary.
Clifford sued in state court seeking (1) approval of an accounting and (2) invalidation of September 2011 amendments to the Trust that he alleges Philip procured by undue influence; Philip removed the case to federal court.
The case was consolidated with related federal litigation (originally filed in W.D.N.Y.) and the Court addressed overlapping jurisdictional disputes.
Philip moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Trust’s principal place of administration is New York (Clifford’s domicile) and that distributions Philip received were not the type that confer Florida trust-jurisdiction.
Clifford pleaded Florida trust jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. § 736.0202 and alleged the Trust is administered from Florida; he produced the Trust, amendments, proposed accounting, and an affidavit describing Florida-based trust administration and records.
The Court denied Philip’s motion: it found the Trust administered from Florida (in rem jurisdiction), Philip accepted distributions from the Florida trust so he is subject to § 736.0202(2)(a)(8), and due process (minimum contacts and reasonableness) is satisfied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
In rem jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. § 736.0202(1): is the Trust’s principal place of administration in Florida?	Clifford: Trust administered from Florida; key records and Florida professionals are located in Florida.	Philip: Trustee (Clifford) lives and does business in New York; principal place of administration is New York.	Held: Sufficient prima facie showing that administration is in Florida; Philip failed to produce evidence shifting the burden. In rem jurisdiction exists.
Personal jurisdiction under § 736.0202(2)(a)(8): did Philip accept distributions from the Florida trust such that he submitted to jurisdiction “with respect to any matter involving the distribution”?	Clifford: Philip accepted distributions from the Florida-administered trust and those distributions relate to the Accounting and amendment dispute.	Philip: Payments were gifts/loans during settlor’s life and not legal distributions; even if some were distributions they are not at issue.	Held: Philip accepted annual exclusion gifts/distributions (2007–2015); those are matters involving distributions and subject him to § 736.0202(2)(a)(8). Personal jurisdiction under the statute is met.
Constitutional due process / minimum contacts and reasonableness	Clifford: Philip’s acceptance of distributions from a Florida-administered trust, use of Florida professionals, Florida accounts and choice-of-law create substantial forum contacts and purposefully availed.	Philip: Litigating in Florida is burdensome; contacts insufficient to satisfy minimum contacts tied to this litigation.	Held: Minimum contacts satisfied (suit-related conduct created substantial connection); purposeful availment met; fair play and substantial justice factors favor Florida. Exercise of jurisdiction is constitutional.
Alternative long‑arm under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a) (tortious conduct in Florida)	Clifford: Also invoked § 48.193(1)(a) based on alleged tortious conduct in Florida.	Philip: Disputes alleged torts and argues insufficiency.	Held: Court did not need to reach § 48.193 because § 736.0202 jurisdiction and due process were satisfied.

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must do more than recite elements)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts need not accept legal conclusions as true)
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (settlor’s domicile alone insufficient for trust jurisdiction)
United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property in Greene & Tuscaloosa Counties, 941 F.2d 1428 (11th Cir.) (removal of the res can defeat in rem jurisdiction in some contexts)
Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (in rem jurisdiction analyzed under International Shoe minimum-contacts standard)
Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (suit‑related conduct must create a substantial connection between defendant and forum)
Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts test)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and reasonableness factors)
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339 (Eleventh Circuit framework for Florida long‑arm + due process)
Fraser v. Smith, 594 F.3d 842 (Eleventh Circuit discussion of tort‑based jurisdiction and relatedness)