Senior Law Clerk
If you handle trust disputes — or really any case with out-of-state parties — personal jurisdiction is one of those threshold issues easy to gloss over on the way to the merits. A recent decision from Florida’s Fourth DCA, Dunham Trust Company v. Surrey (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 29, 2026), is a good reminder that it can also be a case-ender.
In 2001, Florida resident Mildred Surrey created a trust for her two children, Lewis and Ruth. The trust included a choice-of-law provision saying Florida law would govern its “validity and interpretation.” In 2014 — well after Mildred’s death — Dunham Trust Company, a Nevada corporation with offices only in Nevada, was appointed as a successor co-trustee, alongside Lewis. At that point, Lewis lived in California and Ruth lived in Nevada. Lewis later moved to Florida.
Years later, Ruth sued Lewis and DTC in Broward County, alleging Lewis had misappropriated millions and that DTC had breached its fiduciary duties by facilitating or failing to prevent the misconduct. The wrinkle? DTC’s contacts with Florida were thin — administration occurred entirely in Nevada, under Nevada law. The only Florida-facing conduct was routine trust correspondence (account statements, invoices, wire transfer confirmations) mailed to Lewis once he relocated.
DTC moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with Ruth that (1) the Florida choice-of-law provision and (2) the correspondence into Florida supplied enough minimum contacts.
The Fourth DCA reversed, leaning heavily on Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) — the foundational Supreme Court case (itself out of Florida) on purposeful availment in the trust context. Two clean takeaways:
First, a choice-of-law provision is not, by itself, consent to personal jurisdiction. Choosing Florida law to govern a trust’s “validity and interpretation” is not the same as agreeing to be sued in Florida.
Second, mailing routine trust documents into Florida doesn’t, on its own, amount to minimum contacts. Citing Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014), the court emphasized that the analysis looks at the defendant’s contacts with the forum, not with people who happen to live there. DTC’s Florida ties were the unilateral activity of others — Mildred’s choice-of-law clause and Lewis’s later move — neither of which DTC controlled. As the court put it, holding otherwise would subject any nonresident trustee to Florida jurisdiction based on the residence of a settlor or beneficiary. The Court Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss.
Personal jurisdiction is the kind of defense easy to skip past in the rush to attack the merits. Surrey is a good prompt to pause early in any out-of-state matter and ask: did my client actually reach into Florida, or did the dispute land here through someone else’s choices? If it’s the latter, you may have a complete exit waiting before discovery even starts.
For corporate trustees especially, the case confirms that administering a trust from outside Florida — without more — isn’t a ticket to a Florida courtroom.
* * * * * * * * * *
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.