Dunham Trust Company v. Ruth Surrey

Summary

In Dunham Trust Co. v. Surrey, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a Nevada trust company lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to support personal jurisdiction, despite serving as co-trustee of a trust created by a Florida resident and containing a Florida choice-of-law provision. The court ruled that accepting appointment as successor trustee and sending routine trust communications to a Florida beneficiary did not constitute purposeful availment, and that a choice-of-law clause alone cannot confer jurisdiction. Applying Hanson v. Denckla, the court emphasized that the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum state, and that the trustee’s administration of the trust occurred entirely in Nevada.

Holdings

1. Dunham Trust Company did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Accepting the appointment as successor co-trustee of a trust created by a Florida resident and containing a Florida choice-of-law provision, without soliciting the appointment or otherwise reaching out to Florida, does not constitute purposeful availment. Sending routine trust-related communications to a beneficiary who relocated to Florida is similarly insufficient to create a substantial connection with the state.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dunham Trust Company had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to allow Florida courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over it consistent with due process requirements.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded