In re Estate of Kathleen Mullin
155 A.3d 555
| N.H. | 2017Background
- Decedent Kathleen Mullin, domiciled in Hancock, NH, died intestate in 2014; her heirs and the trustee reside in California.
- While living in California in 2012, Mullin executed a California-drafted inter vivos trust and an assignment purporting to transfer most real and personal property to the Trust; Trust contained a California choice-of-law clause (except real property governed by situs law).
- Trustee Laura Bushley filed for trust administration in California and for estate administration in New Hampshire; Bushley later resigned as NH estate administrator and Patricia Jakle (appellant) became administrator.
- Appellant filed an inventory listing about $2.5 million in assets as estate property; appellee challenged, asserting those assets belonged to the Trust and filed a California petition to transfer title to the Trust.
- Appellant moved in NH court for declaratory judgment asserting NH exclusive in rem jurisdiction and that NH law governs; NH circuit court denied the motion, found California has jurisdiction to determine what property belongs to the Trust, applied the Trust’s choice-of-law clause, and found California the more convenient forum.
- New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed: NH courts can probate remaining estate property but need not decide validity of transfers to the Trust before California does; the Trust’s choice-of-law clause controls; forum non conveniens analysis favored California.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jakle) | Defendant's Argument (Bushley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NH has exclusive in rem jurisdiction over decedent’s property and thus exclusive power to determine validity of transfers to the Trust | NH court has exclusive jurisdiction over property located in NH or personal property of a NH domiciliary; precedent requires exclusivity | Other courts with concurrent jurisdiction may decide validity; NH jurisdiction not necessarily exclusive and court may decline to exercise it | NH not required to assert exclusive jurisdiction; CA court may determine what property belongs to the Trust and NH may probate remainder |
| Whether Trust’s choice-of-law clause is controlling for validity of transfers to Trust | Choice clause limited to Trust’s internal affairs and does not govern validity/effectiveness of transfers between estate and Trust | Choice clause expresses settlor’s intent that California law govern validity, construction, administration of Trust (except real property situs law) | Choice-of-law clause is controlling; California law governs validity of transfers to the Trust (situs law governs real property) |
| Whether NH should apply its own law instead of presuming California law | NH law could be applied absent proof of differing California law | Court may assume California law aligns with NH law unless shown otherwise; settlor’s intent governs | Court may presume parity of law but here settlor’s intent (choice clause) directs California law; NH law need not be applied |
| Whether NH erred in forum non conveniens analysis by favoring CA | Public interests of NH and expeditious settlement of estates outweigh CA contacts; witnesses in CA insufficient | Private and public factors (witnesses, evidence, connections, enforceability) favor CA; CA is more convenient | Trial court’s forum non conveniens decision was within discretion; CA is a more convenient forum |
Key Cases Cited
- Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490 (1946) (discusses federal/state division of probate jurisdiction)
- Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260 U.S. 226 (1922) (first court to acquire jurisdiction over a res may preclude others from interfering)
- In re Estate of Rubert, 139 N.H. 273 (1994) (in rem jurisdiction generally where property is located or where decedent domiciled)
- Bartlett v. Dumaine, 128 N.H. 497 (1986) (recognizes strong policy favoring orderly administration of trusts and that a court may decline jurisdiction)
- Leeper v. Leeper, 116 N.H. 116 (1976) (endorses Gulf Oil factors for forum non conveniens)
- Gulf Oil v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (sets private and public interest factors for forum non conveniens)
- In re Farnsworth Estate, 109 N.H. 15 (1968) (decedent’s intent governs choice of law for administration of trusts)
- Robinson v. Carroll, 87 N.H. 114 (1934) (addressed jurisdictional issues in probate context)
- Mann v. Carter, 74 N.H. 345 (1907) (addressed jurisdictional issues in probate context)