Buskirk v. Buskirk - Case Brief

8 Mins read

Buskirk v. Buskirk

Case Number: B295648

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2020-08-17

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 petition for lack of personal jurisdiction, remanded for further proceedings, awarded costs to Walter Van Buskirk III, and granted the request for judicial notice.

Holding

The court held that California courts possessed case‑linked personal jurisdiction over the mother, her Idaho‑resident daughters, and her brother because each defendant had purposefully availed themselves of California’s statutory and common‑law benefits through the creation, administration, and ongoing litigation of a California‑governed trust that continues to own California real‑property interests; consequently, the trial court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was reversed.

Narrative

Lead – In a sprawling family feud that pits a 92‑year‑old matriarch against her adult children, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the state’s authority to adjudicate a trust dispute even though the trust’s assets and most of the parties now reside in Idaho and Nevada. The decision underscores that “purposeful availment” and “relatedness” under California’s case‑linked jurisdiction test are satisfied when a trust, its governing law, and the substantive controversies remain anchored in California, regardless of the parties’ later relocation.

Procedural History

Walter Van Buskirk III filed a petition in the Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking an accounting of the Van Buskirk Trust, removal of the mother, her twin daughters, and their uncle Charles Bluth as trustees, and the appointment of a professional fiduciary. The defendants moved to quash service on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The trial court agreed, finding no “minimum contacts” and suggesting the case belong in Idaho. The defendants appealed, arguing that the order was appealable under Code Civ. Proc. § 904.1(a)(3) and that the jurisdictional analysis was erroneous. The appellate panel reviewed only the jurisdictional issue, leaving standing and venue untouched.

Factual Landscape

The Van Buskirk Trust was created in August 2005 in Los Angeles County by Ellen J. Van Buskirk (the “mother”) and her late husband, Walter Van Buskirk Jr. The trust was executed in California, designated California law as its governing law, and initially held a portfolio of California real‑estate. After the husband’s death, the mother became sole trustor and trustee. Successor trustees named in the original instrument included her son Walter III (a Santa Monica resident), her twin daughters Susan Howard and Patricia Schlener (Idaho residents), and her brother Charles Bluth (Nevada resident).

In September 2016 the mother was transferred from a Santa Monica rehabilitation facility to Idaho, an event the son alleges was a “kidnapping” orchestrated by the daughters and Bluth; the daughters contend it was a voluntary relocation to escape the son’s alleged abuse. Subsequent amendments (2016‑2017) removed the son and his cousin Elizabeth Rakestraw as beneficiaries and removed the son and Bluth as successor trustees. The trust was re‑registered in Idaho, and most of its assets—over 40 properties and all bank accounts—now reside there.

Despite the relocation, the mother has repeatedly sued in California: an unlawful detainer action (2016), a partition suit (2017), and a partnership dissolution (2018) involving California land. The son’s petition challenges those transactions, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, conflict of interest, and undervalued sales.

Whether California courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over the mother, her Idaho‑resident daughters, and her brother Bluth in a trust‑related action filed by the son, given that the trust was created, governed, and still holds California real‑property interests, but the parties now live elsewhere.

Reasoning

1. Governing Law and Minimum Contacts

The court reiterated that California’s personal‑jurisdiction analysis mirrors that applied in civil actions (Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10) and must conform to federal due‑process limits (Daimler AG v. Bauman). The three‑prong test from Pavlovich—purposeful availment, relatedness, and fairness—governs case‑linked jurisdiction.

Purposeful Availment. The mother’s role as trustor and trustee, her lifelong California residency, and her continued filing of lawsuits in Los Angeles satisfy the first prong. The daughters, although Idaho residents, are successor beneficiaries and trustees of a California‑origin trust that still owns California land; they physically traveled to California to retrieve the mother, an act that “directed activities at the forum.” Bluth, the brother, participated in trust administration and assisted in the mother’s relocation, thereby purposefully availing himself of California’s legal framework.

Relatedness. The son’s claims arise directly from alleged mismanagement of California‑situated trust assets—sales of Malibu and Coachella properties, alleged conflicts of interest, and failure to provide an accounting. The dispute is inseparable from the defendants’ contacts with California because the alleged fiduciary breaches occurred in California and the trust’s governing law is California law.

Fairness. The court weighed the defendants’ age, health, and out‑of‑state residence against California’s interest in protecting trust beneficiaries and enforcing fiduciary duties. It found the burden on the defendants modest: the mother has already litigated in California repeatedly; the son resides in California and has a strong interest in obtaining relief where the alleged harms occurred; witnesses and documents concerning the contested transactions are located in California. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the case should be heard in Idaho, noting that “a defendant need not physically enter California at all to be subject to personal jurisdiction here.”

2. Distinguishing Hanson v. Denckla

The appellate panel distinguished the classic Hanson scenario, where a Delaware trustee had no contacts with Florida despite a settlor’s unilateral actions there. Here, the defendants themselves—trustor, trustees, and beneficiaries—have engaged in purposeful conduct tied to California, making Hanson inapplicable.

3. Evidentiary Sufficiency

The son’s verified petition, treated as a declaration under ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff and Strauch v. Eyring, supplied the factual foundation for the jurisdictional analysis. The mother’s failure to object to key verified allegations (paragraphs 16‑19, exhibits B and C) meant the court could rely on those statements as admissible evidence of contacts.

4. Statutory Context

Probate Code § 17004 permits California courts to exercise jurisdiction “on any basis permitted by Section 410.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” The court emphasized that venue statutes (Probate Code §§ 17002, 17005) are distinct from jurisdiction and therefore irrelevant to the present appeal.

Disposition

Finding that all three prongs of the Pavlovich test were satisfied, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal, remanded for further proceedings, awarded costs to the appellant, and granted judicial notice.

Closing Analysis

Buskirk reaffirms California’s willingness to retain jurisdiction over trust disputes that retain a nexus to the state, even when the trust’s assets and many parties have migrated elsewhere. The decision clarifies that “purposeful availment” extends beyond mere physical presence; it embraces the deliberate exercise of rights and duties under a California‑governed instrument.

Practitioners should note two practical takeaways. First, relocating a trust or its beneficiaries does not automatically divest California courts of authority if the trust continues to own California property or the dispute centers on California‑based fiduciary conduct. Second, verified pleadings can serve as sufficient evidence of contacts, limiting the need for additional discovery at the jurisdictional stage.

Unresolved issues linger, however. The appellate court sidestepped the substantive allegations of undue influence and alleged “kidnapping,” leaving open the question of how California courts will handle evidentiary disputes when the parties and key witnesses reside out of state. Moreover, the decision leaves room for future litigation on the “fairness” prong where health or age concerns may be more pronounced, potentially prompting courts to develop more nuanced accommodations for elderly litigants.

Overall, Buskirk provides a robust framework for evaluating personal jurisdiction in multistate trust litigation and signals to California practitioners that the state will continue to protect its fiduciary interests, even when the family’s geography shifts beyond its borders.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Code Civ. Proc. §§ 410.10, 904.1(a)(3) – General jurisdiction and appealability of orders dismissing actions for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Probate Code §§ 17004, 17002, 17005 – Jurisdiction and venue provisions for probate matters.
  • California Constitution, Art. I, § 13 – Due‑process limitation on personal jurisdiction.
  • Federal Precedent – Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (minimum contacts test); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment); Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (fair play and substantial justice).
  • California Cases – Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 262 (2002) (three‑part jurisdiction test); ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff, 1 Cal.App.5th 198 (2016) (verified pleadings as declarations); Strauch v. Eyring, 30 Cal.App.4th 181 (1994); Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) (trust‑jurisdiction distinction); Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 434 (1998) (deference to trial‑court factual findings); Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017) (state courts cannot exceed federal limits).