Buskirk v. Buskirk
B295648M
Cal. Ct. App.Sep 9, 2020Background
- Mother (lifelong California resident) and husband created a revocable living trust in Los Angeles in 2005; trust is governed by California law and was administered in California for years.
- Mother is trustee and beneficiary; successor trustees/beneficiaries included son Walter Van Buskirk III (Santa Monica, CA), twin daughters Susan Howard and Patricia Schlener (Idaho), and brother Charles Bluth (Nevada).
- In Sept. 2016–2017 the mother left California for Idaho, amended the trust to remove the son and others as beneficiaries/trustees, and registered the trust in Idaho; many trust assets were transferred, though the trust retained interests in California real property.
- Son filed a verified petition in Los Angeles County seeking an accounting and removal of trustees, alleging improper California real-estate transactions and undue influence by the daughters; respondents moved to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction (and asserted venue/standing defenses).
- Trial court granted the motions to quash and dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; son appealed, challenging only the personal-jurisdiction ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California has case-linked (specific) personal jurisdiction over mother, daughters, and Bluth | Son: defendants purposefully availed themselves of California via a trust created/ administered in CA, CA-law governance, CA real property, and defendants’ conduct connected to CA | Respondents: they moved to Idaho, registered the trust there, and most trust assets are now in Idaho — contacts with CA insufficient | Reversed: CA has case-linked jurisdiction; defendants’ longstanding CA trust ties and transactions in CA satisfy minimum contacts and fairness prong does not bar jurisdiction |
| Whether son’s verified petition provided sufficient admissible evidence to oppose motion to quash | Son: a properly verified petition may be treated as a declaration and supplies evidentiary support | Mother: allegations (including on information and belief) are insufficient to defeat quash | Held: verified petition is admissible as declaration; unobjected verified allegations and exhibits supported jurisdictional facts |
| Whether respondents’ relocation and registering the trust in Idaho severed CA contacts | Son: relocation does not erase prior purposeful contacts or ongoing CA-related conduct | Respondents: moving and registration moved trust activities out of CA, so CA courts lack contacts | Held: relocation/registration did not defeat jurisdiction given trust’s CA origin, governance, CA property interests, and defendants’ CA-directed acts |
| Whether Probate Code venue provisions (17002, 17005) defeat CA personal jurisdiction | Son: those statutes address venue, not constitutional minimum contacts | Respondents: statutory venue rules point to Idaho as proper forum | Held: venue statutes are irrelevant to the constitutional minimum-contacts analysis; personal jurisdiction is separate |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (establishes limits on general jurisdiction)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (trustee lacked minimum contacts where trustee had no forum ties)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and defendant’s reasonable expectations)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (focus on defendant’s forum connections for jurisdiction)
- Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 262 (three-part test for specific jurisdiction in California)
- Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 434 (standards for appellate review of jurisdictional facts)
- Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Industrial Co. Ltd., 31 Cal.App.5th 543 (burden allocation on motion to quash)
- Khan v. Superior Court, 204 Cal.App.3d 1168 (interest in California property gives reasonable expectation of CA protections)