Buskirk v. Buskirk - Case Brief

6 Mins read

Buskirk v. Buskirk

Case Number: B295648M

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2020-09-09

Case Brief – Buskirk v. Buskirk

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-04
Case Number: B295648
Disposition: The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order dismissing the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, remanded for further proceedings, awarded costs to the plaintiff, and granted the request for judicial notice.

Holding

The court held that California courts may exercise case‑linked personal jurisdiction over non‑resident trustees and beneficiaries when the trust was created, administered, and continues to hold California real‑property interests, and when the plaintiff’s claims arise directly from those contacts; consequently, the trial court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was reversed.

Narrative

California retains jurisdiction over a family trust dispute despite the parties’ relocation to Idaho and Nevada. In Buskirk v. Buskirk, the Second Appellate District confronted a classic “forum‑shopping” argument raised by a mother‑trustee and her adult children who had moved out of state. The appellate court’s decision underscores that a trust’s origins, its governing law, and the location of its assets can anchor personal jurisdiction in California, even when the parties no longer reside there.

Procedural backdrop

Walter Van Buskirk III, the son, filed a petition in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking an accounting of the “Van Buskirk Trust,” removal of the mother‑trustee, her two daughters (successor trustees), and the mother’s brother, Charles Bluth (successor trustee), and the appointment of a professional fiduciary. The mother and the daughters moved to quash service, arguing that California lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The trial court agreed, finding no “minimum contacts” and dismissing the case without prejudice. The son appealed solely on the jurisdictional ruling; issues of standing and venue were left untouched.

Core facts

The trust was created in August 2005 in Los Angeles County by the mother and her late husband, Walter Jr., who chose California law to govern the instrument. The trust held a portfolio of California real‑estate, including parcels in Malibu and a date‑farm in Coachella Valley. After Walter Jr.’s death, the mother became sole trustor and trustee. In 2016 she relocated to Idaho, allegedly after her daughters “kidnapped” her from a rehabilitation facility; the mother contends the move was voluntary. Subsequent amendments in 2016‑2017 removed the son and his cousin as beneficiaries and trustees, and the trust was re‑registered in Idaho. Nonetheless, the trust continues to own California land, and the mother has repeatedly sued in California (unlawful detainer, partition, partnership dissolution) since moving.

Whether California courts may assert case‑linked personal jurisdiction over the mother, her daughters, and brother, all non‑residents, in a dispute centered on a trust that originated and remains partially situated in California.

Reasoning

The court applied the three‑prong Pavlovich test for specific jurisdiction:

  1. Purposeful availment – The mother’s role as trustor, trustee, and California plaintiff, coupled with the trust’s creation and continued ownership of California property, satisfied the purposeful‑availment inquiry. The daughters, as successor trustees and beneficiaries, and Bluth, as a long‑time trustee, likewise directed activities toward California. The court emphasized that a defendant need not be physically present in the forum; the trust’s California nexus and the defendants’ ongoing participation constitute purposeful conduct.

  2. Relatedness – The son’s claims (accounting, removal of trustees, alleged self‑dealing in California land sales) arise directly from the defendants’ contacts with California. The alleged below‑market sales, the date‑farm transaction, and the trust’s continued California holdings tie the dispute to the forum.

  3. Fairness – Balancing factors favored jurisdiction. The plaintiff is a California resident; the alleged injuries occurred in California; witnesses and documents are located there; and the mother has a history of litigating in California, demonstrating that the forum is not unduly burdensome. The defendants’ arguments about age, health, and out‑of‑state residence were deemed insufficient to outweigh California’s interest in adjudicating a trust governed by its law and containing in‑state assets.

The court distinguished Hanson v. Denckla, where a Delaware trustee lacked contacts with Florida. Here, the trust’s “home base” is California, and the defendants themselves have actively engaged with the state, negating the “isolated” nature of the Denckla scenario.

The appellate panel also rejected reliance on Probate Code §§ 17002 and 17005, noting that those statutes address venue, not the constitutional threshold of minimum contacts.

Outcome

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal, remanded for further proceedings, awarded costs to Walter Van Buskirk III, and granted the request for judicial notice. The decision restores the son’s ability to pursue an accounting and potential removal of the trustees in California.

Impact and unresolved questions

Buskirk reinforces that California courts can retain jurisdiction over trust disputes when the trust’s “anchor”—its creation, governing law, and in‑state assets—remains in California, even if the parties relocate. Practitioners should anticipate that moving a trust’s administration to another state does not automatically divest California courts of authority, especially where the trust continues to own California property.

The opinion leaves open the question of how far a court may go in ordering discovery of out‑of‑state documents and testimony when the majority of the trust’s assets have been transferred elsewhere. Future litigation may test the limits of “fairness” when the burden of producing evidence in California becomes substantial for non‑resident parties.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Code Civ. Proc. §§ 410.10, 904.1(a)(3) – Basis for personal jurisdiction and appealability of dismissal orders.
  • Probate Code §§ 17004, 17002, 17005 – Jurisdiction and venue provisions (the latter deemed inapplicable to the jurisdictional issue).
  • Three‑prong Pavlovich test – Purposeful availment, relatedness, fairness.
  • Minimum contacts doctrine – International Shoe Co. v. Washington (principle incorporated via Daimler AG v. Bauman).
  • General vs. specific jurisdiction – Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz; Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court.
  • Case law: Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262; ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198; Strauch v. Eyring (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 181; Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 919; Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434; Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Industrial Co. Ltd. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 543; Halyard Health, Inc. v. Kimberly‑Clark Corp. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1062; Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235.

These authorities collectively shape the appellate court’s analysis of personal jurisdiction in the context of inter‑state trust litigation.