Fellows v. Colburn
34 A.3d 552
N.H.2011Background
- Defendants Colburn and Ronald and Richard Tennant appeal a denial of their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a negligence/FDCA action by Fellows and Bellerose.
- Concord property at 588 North State Street was owned by the Tennants and later by the Tennant Family Trust; initial trust formation documents were prepared in Florida.
- Lead paint abatement issue arose in 1996; abatement order issued by NH DPHS; 2000 sale of Concord property to Guzmans allegedly without notifying them of the orders.
- Trust restated in 2000; Robin resides in Illinois, Richard in Florida/Massachusetts, Ronald in Colorado; successors appointed in 2003; final distributions occurred by 2006.
- Guzmans (purchasers) later sold the property to plaintiffs in 2003; plaintiffs allege federal and state-law claims related to lead paint notification.
- Trial court held NH jurisdiction over the trust and over Robin/Richard as successor trustees and over all three as beneficiaries; defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NH has specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants. | Fellows argues trust contacts in NH and distributions foreseeably subject defendants. | Colburn, Tennant siblings contend minimal/no NH contacts; no purposeful availment. | No specific jurisdiction over defendants as successor trustees or beneficiaries. |
| Whether RSA 564-B:2-202 makes trustees/beneficiaries subject to NH jurisdiction upon accepting duties or distributions. | Accepting trusteeship/distributions subjects them to NH jurisdiction for trust matters. | Statute offends due process absent substantial NH contacts. | Not sufficient evidence that principal administration was NH; jurisdiction rejected. |
| Whether the trust's principal place of administration was in NH to support jurisdiction. | Abatement orders and NH activities show NH as principal administration. | Evidence is insufficient; trust not administered in NH. | Plaintiffs failed to prove NH principal place of administration. |
| Whether there is quasi in rem jurisdiction and if so, against whom. | Quasi in rem could reach defendants via trust assets. | Quasi in rem analysis fails for lack of personal jurisdiction. | Quasi in rem jurisdiction rejected for these defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyme Timber Co. v. DSF Investors, 150 N.H. 557 (2004) (prima facie standard for jurisdictional facts; de novo review)
- N. Atlantic Ref. Ltd., 160 N.H. 275 (2010) (proffers must show facts essential to personal jurisdiction)
- Vt. Wholesale Bldg. Prods. v. J.W. Jones Lumber Co., 154 N.H. 625 (2006) (gestalt factors; three-part test for specific jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts doctrine)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (foreseeability and fair play in jurisdictional analysis)
- Skillsoft Corp. v. Hareourt General, 146 N.H. 305 (2001) (contacts must relate to the litigation; deliberate availment)
- Phillips Exeter Academy v. Howard Phillips Fund, 196 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1999) (purposeful availment not satisfied by trustee appointment alone)
- First American Bank of Va. v. Reilly, 563 N.E.2d 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (trustee’s contacts with state for jurisdictional purposes)
- Mosier v. Kinley, 142 N.H. 415 (1997) (separate analysis of jurisdiction from other issues)