14-10202. Jurisdiction over trustee and beneficiary
A. By accepting the trusteeship of a trust having its principal place of administration in this state or by moving the principal place of administration to this state, or until otherwise declared by the trustee if a proceeding regarding a matter involving the trust is not pending in a court of this state, by declaring that the trust is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, the trustee submits personally to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state regarding any matter involving the trust.
B. With respect to their interests in the trust, the beneficiaries of a trust having its principal place of administration in this state are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state regarding any matter involving the trust. By accepting a distribution from such a trust, the recipient submits personally to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state regarding any matter involving the trust.
C. This section does not preclude other methods of obtaining jurisdiction over a trustee, beneficiary or other person receiving property from the trust.
Notes of Decisions
Hoag v. Hon. french/wells, 357 P.3d 153 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 13× “¶ 16 Accordingly, we conclude that because the Unitrusts are administered by IBMC in the Bahamas, IBMC is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Arizona pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-10202. III. Constitutional Jurisdiction ¶ 17 A.”
Woods v. McCarty (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “The trust records and books are kept in Texas and none of the assets are located in Arizona. We conclude the Marital Trusts were not principally administered in Arizona.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-10202(A) — 1 case
Hoag v. Hon. french/wells, 357 P.3d 153 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“¶ 16 Accordingly, we conclude that because the Unitrusts are administered by IBMC in the Bahamas, IBMC is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Arizona pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-10202. III. Constitutional Jurisdiction ¶ 17 A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-10202(C) — 1 case
Woods v. McCarty (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“The trust records and books are kept in Texas and none of the assets are located in Arizona. We conclude the Marital Trusts were not principally administered in Arizona.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-10202(c) — 1 case
Hoag v. Hon. french/wells, 357 P.3d 153 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“¶ 16 Accordingly, we conclude that because the Unitrusts are administered by IBMC in the Bahamas, IBMC is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Arizona pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-10202. III. Constitutional Jurisdiction ¶ 17 A.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.