Florida Probate and Trust Litigation Blog

Where is the Proper Venue to Challenge a Trust?

For Trust Actions, What is the Right Venue?

   For traditional lawsuits, selecting the proper or correct forum is an easy issue. In the interest in fairness and justice the Florida legislature has promulgated a statute that governs where general lawsuits may be brought. That statute is Section 47.011 and provides that actions must be brought where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.

   But, Trusts are unique creatures. Many Trusts have a Trustee located in one place, and beneficiaries and property spread throughout the state or country. So, the Florida Legislature enacted a separate statute governing the proper for venue for trust actions.

Florida Statutes Section 736.0204 - Venue for Actions and Proceedings Concerning Trusts:

   Florida Statute Section 736.0204 gives three alternatives for where a Trust action can be brought:

A Technically Correct Venue Does Not Always Mean the Proper Venue.

   While a venue may technically meet the statutory requirements, it may not be the most appropriate forum. For example, the statute makes it clear that any county where a beneficiary is located is a proper venue. What is one disgruntled beneficiary of a Trust lives in Miami but the other fifteen beneficiaries live in Pinellas County? What if the Trustee of the Trust, real property owned by the Trust, and all witnesses and evidence are also located in Pinellas or Hillsborough County? You are probably thinking there has to be a method of transferring the venue to the most appropriate forum. Thankfully, there is--it's called forum non conveniens.

What is Forum Non Conveniens?

   The doctrine of forum non conveniens means “inconvenient form” and “addresses the problem that arises when a local court technically has jurisdiction over a suit but the cause of action may be fairly and more conveniently litigated elsewhere.” Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86, 87 (Fla. 1996). In Kinney, the Florida Supreme Court expressly adopted the Federal doctrine of forum non conveniens. Id. at 93.

Florida Statutes Section 47.122 provides as follows:

For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought.

   Pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.061, the Court may transfer a case to a more convenient forum when:

(1) the trial court finds that an adequate alternate forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case, including all of the parties;

(2) the trial court finds that all relevant factors of private interest favor the alternate forum, weighing in the balance a strong presumption against disturbing plaintiffs’ initial forum choice;

(3) if the balance of private interests is at or near equipoise, the court further finds that factors of public interest tip the balance in favor of trial in the alternate forum; and

(4) the trial judge ensures that plaintiffs can reinstate their suit in the alternate forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice.

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061.

   The initial threshold issue is whether the lawsuit could be brought in the proposed transferee forum. Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085, 1091 (Fla. 2013). A Court considers the availability and adequacy of the suggested forum in determining the first factor. Id. at 1092. Availability can be satisfied by the Defendants agreeing to accept service in the alternative forum. Id. at 1092. A forum is adequate when it permits litigation of the subject matter of the dispute. Id. at 1092. The second factor is critical to the analysis. Although there is a presumption in favor of the Plaintiff’s selected forum, the Court must balance the conveniences of the parties by examining the access to evidence, access to witnesses, enforcement of judgments, and the practicalities and expenses associated with the lawsuit. Each of those considerations favor Pinellas County. Cortez, 123 So. 3d at 1092. “The most important consideration of the three statutory factors in section 47.122 is the convenience of the witnesses.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Young, 690 So. 2d 1377, 1379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). To properly evaluate this, the Court needs to know who the witnesses are and the significance of their testimony. Id. If a court determines that the private interest factors are at or near equipoise, the Court must focus on “whether the case has a general nexus with the forum to justify the forum’s commitment of judicial time and resources to it.” Cortez 123 So. 3d at 1093 (quoting Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996)).

Contact Us:

PersanteZuroweste brings actions to invalidate estate planning documents and defends claims that estate planning instruments are invalid. If you believe that you may need legal assistance regarding a Florida probate or trust litigation matter, please contact us at (727) 796-7666.

About PersanteZuroweste:

PersanteZuroweste has established a reputation as prominent trial lawyers serving clients throughout Florida. Our office is conveniently located in Pinellas County close to the Clearwater, St. Petersburg, and Tampa Bay communities.