New Legislation Resolves Jurisdictional Question in Trust Proceedings

Governor Tim Walz signed legislation on April 17 that amended the Minnesota Trust Code and clarified jurisdiction in Minnesota trust proceedings, putting to rest questions raised by a January 2023 Court of Appeals decision that had limited a district court's power to remove trustees to proceedings in which the court's in personam, not in rem, jurisdiction had been invoked. With this recent clarification, a court's power is not limited by the type of jurisdiction.

We published a legal alert on Feb. 28, 2023, discussing Swanson v. Wolf, 986 N.W.2d 217 (Minn. App. 2023). To summarize the issue, the Minnesota Trust Code provides for two types of jurisdiction in trust proceedings: 1) in rem jurisdiction, which refers to the court's authority over the trust's assets, and 2) in personam jurisdiction, which refers to the court's authority over a person interested in the trust.

As provided for in Minn. Stat. § 501C.0203, either form of jurisdiction can be invoked by the specific manner in which notice of an initial petition is provided. An in rem petition is served by publishing in a paper of record, putting the world on notice of the proceeding. An in personam petition is served by personally serving the people interested in the trust. A separate statute, Minn. Stat. § 501C.0202, enumerates the courts' powers in trust proceedings. These powers include the ability to remove a trustee. In Swanson, the Court of Appeals determined that because the ability to remove a trustee was a power "binding on individuals," then the court must have in personam jurisdiction over the trustee to exercise that power.

As we noted last year, Swanson called into question which jurisdiction was necessary for the other items of judicial relief under section 501C.0202 of the Minnesota Trust Code. For example, if a court needed in personam jurisdiction to remove a trustee, does a court need in personam jurisdiction to appoint a new trustee? If a trustee sold a trust's real property, which jurisdiction is necessary for the court to approve that action? The asset would be part of the res of the trust but the court would be asked to confirm an individual's action regarding that asset. Is that in rem? Is that in personam?

By amending the Minnesota Trust Code, lawmakers have answered those questions. Specifically, section 501C.0202 now makes clear that the enumerated powers of a court may be exercised "whether filed by petition under the district court's in rem or in personam jurisdiction …." The legislation also clarifies that an order issued by a court with in rem jurisdiction is binding "upon the trust estate and all interested persons …."

In other words, lawmakers have clarified that a court's powers in a trust proceeding are not limited by whether the court operates under in rem or in personam jurisdiction. With this clarification, the only consideration between in rem or in personam jurisdiction is how the filing party wishes to serve its petition and who will be bound by the court's order.

We Can Help

Maslon's Trust & Estate Litigation and Estate Planning attorneys welcome your questions about trusts, trustees, and legal precedent in this often complex area of law.