Mass. Gen. Laws » Part II Title II Chapter 201A
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 201A, § 2 (2026)

Scope and jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 2. (a) Except as otherwise provided in section twenty-two, this chapter shall apply to a transfer that refers to this chapter in the designation under subsection (a) of section nine by which the transfer is made if, at the time of the transfer, the transferor, or the minor, or the custodian is a resident of the commonwealth or the custodial property is located in the commonwealth. The custodianship so created remains subject to this chapter despite a subsequent change in residence of a transferor, the minor, or the custodian, or the removal of custodial property from the commonwealth.

(b) A person designated as custodian under this chapter is subject to personal jurisdiction in the commonwealth with respect to any matter relating to the custodianship.

(c) A transfer that purports to be made and which is valid under the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act, the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act, or a substantially similar act of another state, is governed by the law of the designated state and may be executed and is enforceable in the commonwealth if at the time of the transfer, the transferor, the minor, or the custodian is a resident of the designated state or the custodial property is located in the designated state.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: Roch v. Mollica, 113 N.E.3d 820 (Mass. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Roch v. Mollica, 113 N.E.3d 820 (Mass. 2019). “159C, § 12 (personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who violate telemarketing solicitation laws); G. L. c. 201A, § 2 ( b ) (personal jurisdiction over custodians under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act); G.”
Pavlov (D. Mass. 2025). “” Mass. Gen. L. c. 201A, § 2. Here, the PUTMA statute is substantially similar to the MUTMA, and Pavlov alleges that his grandparents established a UTMA account “pursuant to Pennsylvania’s UTMA statute,” D.”
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.