Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk

• Decision Date: 14 August 2020
• Docket Number: B295648
• Citation: 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 655,53 Cal.App.5th 523
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Walter Van BUSKIRK III, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ellen J. Van BUSKIRK, Individually and as Trustee, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

53 Cal.App.5th 523

267 Cal.Rptr.3d 655

Walter Van BUSKIRK III, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.Ellen J. Van BUSKIRK, Individually and as Trustee, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B295648

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, California.

Filed August 14, 2020

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing September 9, 2020

RMO, Scott E. Rahn, Sean D. Muntz, Matthew F. Baker and David G. Greco, Solana Beach, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, Mark Riera and Talya Goldfinger, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent Ellen J. Van Buskirk.

Law Offices of Savin & Bursk, Bonnie Marie Bursk and Lindsay Lupe Savin, Granada Hills, for Defendants and Respondents Susan Howard and Patricia Schlener.

Gunderson Law Firm, Mark H. Gunderson and Catherine A. Reichenberg for Defendant and Respondent Charles Bluth.

WILEY, J.

For want of personal jurisdiction, the trial court dismissed this family dispute over a trust. This was error, for the trust has ample connections to California, as do all family members who live elsewhere and who protest jurisdiction in California. We reverse and remand this matter.

I

The central figure in this family dispute is respondent Ellen Van Buskirk, who was 91 when she executed her declaration in this case. For simplicity and clarity, we refer to her as the mother.

The mother was married to Walter Van Buskirk, Jr., who died in 2005. The mother was a lifelong California resident; the couple had lived together in Santa Monica. Earlier in 2005, they created a revocable living trust called "The VAN BUSKIRK TRUST dated August 24, 2005" (Trust). They executed the Trust in Los Angeles County and chose California law as the governing law. After Walter Van Buskirk, Jr., died, the mother became the sole trustor.

The mother also is the trustee of the Trust. Before 2017, the Trust appointed the following people as successor trustees, should the mother be unwilling or unable to act as trustee:

• Appellant Walter Van Buskirk III , is the mother's son, and we refer to him by this relationship. This son lives in Santa Monica, California.

• Respondents Susan Howard and Patricia Schlener are Mother's twin daughters and the son's twin sisters. We refer to Howard and Schlener collectively as the daughters. The daughters live in Idaho. • Respondent Charles Bluth is the mother's brother and uncle to the daughters and the son. Bluth lives in Nevada.

The mother is the current beneficiary of the Trust. Before 2017, the Trust named the daughters, the son, and Elizabeth Rakestraw (the mother's granddaughter) as successor beneficiaries.

The Trust was administered in California from 2005 to 2016. After the mother's husband died in 2005, Bluth began to help the mother—his sister—run the Trust. Bluth's precise level of involvement is disputed, as we will describe.

September 30, 2016 was a watershed for the family and its Trust. What happened that day depends on who tells the story.

The son's version goes like this. He is the only child to have worked in the family real estate business. He spent time caring for his parents "more than any other child" in the family. He cared for his mother in Santa Monica until a medical condition hospitalized her at St. John's Hospital in Santa Monica, which later released her to a local rehabilitation facility. But on September 30, 2016, the son's twin sisters—the daughters—conspired to kidnap Mother from that facility. One daughter and the other daughter's child came at night to remove their mother from the facility, against medical advice, and to take her to Idaho, where the daughters live. The other daughter and Bluth assisted them. The mother remains in Idaho, isolated and under the undue influence of the daughters. When the son tried to visit his mother there, the daughters "and others acting in concert with them" have blocked his visits with "threats of violence." The mother's actions since 2016 ostensibly have cut the son out of the Trust and thus out of his inheritance. The Trust sold some of its California properties at fire sale prices. The son suspects these actions stem from his sisters’ manipulation and control of their mother. That is the son's view of events.

The daughters and the mother paint a different picture. They say the son is a ne'er-do-well who neither went to college nor gained marketable skills but just lived off the family's wealth. The mother fears her son's anger management problem. When she fell and got hurt, her son abused her by locking her away without proper food or care, hoping to hasten her demise and his inheritance. To escape him, the mother left the California rehabilitation facility of her own free will. Although advanced in years, the mother continues to make independent personal and financial decisions, including the decisions to relocate permanently to Idaho and to disinherit her son. All her property transactions have been prudent and proper. The son's allegations are simply "wild." That is the mother's and the daughters’ account.

We cannot and need not resolve this family dispute. Our task is to analyze the issue of personal jurisdiction in the face of this ongoing factual conflict. We base our analysis only on undisputed record facts.

The mother and the daughters claim the mother made crucial changes to the Trust in 2016 and 2017. The mother produced evidence she amended the Trust in these years to remove her son and Rakestraw as beneficiaries and her son and Bluth as successor trustees. In 2017, the mother registered the Trust in Idaho. California law still governs the Trust, as the mother and her daughters conceded at oral argument.

The Trust's assets have changed since 2016. The Trust formerly held interests in many real properties in California. Then the Trust transferred most of these properties so that now most of its assets—more than 40 real properties and all bank accounts—are in Idaho.

Since moving to Idaho, the mother has filed four lawsuits in California. She brought an unlawful detainer action against her son to evict him from the former family home in Santa Monica. She filed a 2017 partition action concerning land in Malibu. She sued in 2018 to dissolve a partnership and to sell a Coachella date farm the partnership owned. The Trust has interests in both the Malibu and the Coachella properties. The son's lawyers also assert the mother filed a spousal property petition in California. The mother filed all these actions in state court in Los Angeles County.

The son opposed his mother's recent real estate transactions. He filed this lawsuit, arguing the transactions violated the Trust's interests and his interests as well. He claimed the daughters and Bluth participated in these transactions. The son sought an accounting and the removal of the mother, the daughters, and Bluth as trustees.

On occasion, we refer to the mother, the daughters, and Bluth collectively as Respondents.

The mother and daughters moved to quash the son's petition for lack of personal jurisdiction. They also sought dismissal for lack of standing and for "mandatory" venue in Idaho. Bluth joined the motions. No party brought a forum non conveniens motion.

The son opposed the motions, relying on allegations in his verified petition and on pleadings from other cases pending in California involving some or all the parties.

The trial court ruled the son failed to establish Respondents’ minimum contacts with California. The court also assumed the case could move forward in Idaho and declined to accept jurisdiction.

The son appealed, arguing the trial court's personal jurisdiction ruling was wrong. The mother and daughters filed responsive briefs that blend concepts of venue, standing, and jurisdiction. Bluth joined this briefing. No party appealed any determination regarding standing or venue. The trial court's ruling on personal jurisdiction is the only matter before us.

II

The mother incorrectly argues the trial court's order is a non-appealable denial of an accounting. In fact, the order granted the motions to quash and dismissed the case without prejudice. That order is appealable. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(3) ; see also Prob. Code, § 1000, subd. (a) [rules for civil actions generally apply in probate matters].) We treat this matter as the son's appeal and not as an extraordinary writ.

III

We review personal jurisdiction law.

When a defendant moves to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence the facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. The burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable. ( Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Industrial Co. Ltd. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 543, 553, 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 705.)

We draw all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court's order. ( Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 919, 923, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 834.) When the evidence conflicts, we defer to the trial court's factual findings when substantial evidence supports them. ( Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 899, 926 P.2d 1085 ( Vons ), abrogated on other grounds by Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court (2017) ––– U.S. ––––, , 198 L.Ed.2d 395 ( Bristol-Myers ).) When evidence does not conflict, we independently review both the record and the trial court's application of law to facts. ( Vons , at p. 449, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 899, 926 P.2d 1085.)

Among other findings, the trial court specifically found most of the Trust properties currently are in Idaho, the son is no longer a Trust beneficiary, and the mother has moved to Idaho. We accept those factual findings and do not question them.

As matters of state law, personal jurisdiction rules are the same for civil and trust proceedings. (See Prob. Code, § 17004 ["The court may exercise jurisdiction in proceedings under this division on any basis permitted by Section 410.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure."].) California courts may exercise jurisdiction to...