Potter v. Baxter

To establish minimum contacts with the State of Oregon, “the [petitioner’s] claims must arise out of or relate to the [respondent’s] contacts with the forum state."

The beneficiaries of a trust, who lived in Oregon, sued the California resident trustee for breach of trust and fraud after he failed to provide accountancy, distribute funds, and allegedly mismanaged the funds. The trust was created by the beneficiaries’ mother, who was a California resident and resided in California until her death. On appeal, the trustee asserted that the trial court erred when it denied the trustee’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Oregon Court of Appeals determined that in order to establish jurisdiction over an out of state resident, the trustee must have “minimum contacts” with Oregon. Minimum contacts can mean, “the nature and quality of the [respondent’s] Oregon activities must permit a determination that it was reasonably foreseeable that the [respondent] would be sued in Oregon for the type of claim at issue.” Cox v. HP Inc., 368 Or 477, 496, 492 P.3d 1245 (2021). Here, based on various factors, the Court concluded that the trustee’s contacts with Oregon were limited to speaking with the beneficiaries occasionally and were not of the nature and quality that would permit a determination that it was reasonably foreseeable for the trustee to be sued in Oregon. Therefore, the Oregon courts did not have jurisdiction over the trustee. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision.