Florida Trust Jurisdiction: What Out-of-State Trustees Face
What Happened
A Florida appellate court issued a significant ruling in April 2026 that reshapes how attorneys and trust beneficiaries think about suing out-of-state trustees in Florida courts. The case, Dunham Trust Company v. Surrey, decided by Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, involved a Nevada corporate trustee that had accepted appointment as successor trustee of a trust originally created by a Florida resident.
The central question was whether Florida courts could exercise personal jurisdiction over the Nevada trustee. Florida has a trust-specific long-arm statute, first adopted in 2013, that allows courts to assert jurisdiction over a non-Florida trustee who serves a trust created by a Florida resident. The trial court relied on that statute alone and denied the Nevada trustee's motion to dismiss. The Fourth DCA reversed that decision.
The appellate court held that satisfying the statute is only the first step in a two-part analysis. Courts must also determine whether the non-Florida trustee has sufficient "minimum contacts" with Florida to satisfy constitutional due process requirements. Because the Nevada trustee had simply accepted an appointment without actively soliciting business in Florida, conducting administration in Florida, or otherwise reaching out to establish a Florida relationship, the court found that the minimum contacts test was not satisfied. The trustee could not be sued in Florida courts.
What It Means
The Dunham decision matters far beyond the courtroom. It reflects a broader reality that families creating trusts today increasingly use trustees, corporate or individual, located in states other than where the grantor lives. States like Nevada and Delaware have aggressively positioned themselves as favorable trust jurisdictions, offering modern statutes, favorable tax treatment, and flexible administrative rules. Florida residents who place assets in trusts administered by out-of-state corporate trustees may find that disputes over those trusts cannot be resolved in a Florida courtroom, even when the trust was created under Florida law.
The ruling draws a clear line between two concepts that are easy to conflate. A choice-of-law provision in a trust document, one that says Florida law governs the validity and interpretation of the trust, does not mean Florida courts have personal jurisdiction over a non-Florida trustee. The Fourth DCA specifically noted that a choice-of-law clause does not require administration to occur in Florida and does not put a foreign trustee on notice that it will face Florida lawsuits. For families, this distinction has real consequences. A trust that reads like a Florida document may still require litigation in Nevada or another state if the trustee operates from there.
The decision also highlights a gap that affects estate planning decisions made long before any dispute arises. When a Florida resident creates a trust and names a corporate trustee headquartered in another state, the jurisdictional question rarely comes up during the planning conversation. Yet the Dunham ruling makes clear that this choice carries legal weight. Beneficiaries who later want to hold a trustee accountable for breach of fiduciary duty may face the added burden of litigating in an unfamiliar state. Florida's trust code, which the state adopted following the Uniform Trust Code framework, governs trust administration in many respects, but it cannot compel a foreign court to apply Florida procedural rules or accept Florida's long-arm statute as sufficient on its own. Families with complex multi-state trust arrangements benefit from understanding what trust jurisdiction means and why the choice of trustee location shapes the practical options available to beneficiaries.
Florida's Trust Landscape in 2026
Florida does not impose a state estate or inheritance tax, making it an attractive state for wealth accumulation and transfer. The federal estate tax exemption currently stands at $15,000,00026 USC 2001(c), 2010; P.L. 119-21 §70106Verified Jul 13, 2026View source per individual, or $30,000,00026 USC 2001(c), 2010; P.L. 119-21 §70106Verified Jul 13, 2026View source for married couples using portability. Against that backdrop, many Florida families hold substantial assets in trust structures that cross state lines. The Dunham ruling adds a layer of complexity to those arrangements that families and their advisors need to understand before a dispute ever arises.
Florida's probate process, which trusts are designed to help families avoid, typically runs 9 monthsFla. Stat. § 733.402 (bond — required by default: "Unless the bond requirement has been waived by the will or by the courtVerified Jul 15, 2026View source to 12 monthsFla. Stat. § 733.402 (bond — required by default: "Unless the bond requirement has been waived by the will or by the courtVerified Jul 15, 2026View source and carries a court filing fee of $395Fla. Stat. § 28.2401(1)(g)Verified Jul 15, 2026View source plus attorney fees calculated on a statutory schedule. Executors in Florida probate proceedings must obtain a surety bond by default, though the will can waive this requirement. These costs and delays represent exactly what a well-funded trust is designed to prevent. But the Dunham decision serves as a reminder that trust administration carries its own legal complexities, particularly when trustees operate across state lines. Families who use the probate cost calculator to understand what probate would cost their estate often come away motivated to fund a trust carefully. That same care applies to choosing where a trust will be administered and who will serve as trustee.
Two Tests, Not One
The practical takeaway from Dunham is that Florida's trust-specific long-arm statute provides a starting point, not a finish line. Courts apply a two-step analysis. First, they ask whether the statute provides a basis for jurisdiction. Second, they ask whether the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy due process. A trustee that passively accepts an appointment, administers the trust from another state, and never actively solicits Florida business may satisfy the first test and still fail the second. The court also noted that at least two Florida cases have now reached opposite conclusions on similar facts, meaning the outcome of any given jurisdictional dispute remains genuinely uncertain. That uncertainty carries real costs for beneficiaries who must decide whether to pursue claims against a non-Florida trustee.
Context from SimplyTrust
The Dunham ruling underscores why the choice of trustee and trust situs matters from the moment a trust is created. SimplyTrust creates Nevada revocable living trusts, and Nevada's trust laws offer modern, flexible administrative rules that support straightforward trust management. When grantors pass, trustees hold the option to change the trust's legal location to the last residence of the grantors or remain in Nevada, whichever arrangement serves the beneficiaries most effectively. This flexibility means families are not locked into a single jurisdictional outcome at the time of creation. Understanding how to choose trustees and what their responsibilities entail is a foundational part of building a trust that works across state lines.
For Florida families thinking through their estate planning options, the intersection of trust jurisdiction, trustee selection, and beneficiary rights represents exactly the kind of complexity that benefits from careful planning. The Do I Need Probate tool helps families understand when court involvement becomes necessary and when a properly funded trust provides an alternative path. Florida's Summary AdministrationFla. Stat. § 733.402 (bond — required by default: "Unless the bond requirement has been waived by the will or by the courtVerified Jul 15, 2026View source threshold rises to $150,000 effective July 1, 2026, under legislation passed this year, giving more estates access to a streamlined process. Even so, a funded trust administered by a trustee with clear authority and a defined situs remains the most comprehensive way to keep an estate out of court and in the hands of the people a grantor trusts most. This article provides general information, not legal advice.