Appeals panel questions where a restated trust is principally administered in Nesbetta dispute
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Counsel disputed whether Massachusetts or Florida law controls principal place of trust administration; appellant cited an original 1987 clause favoring Massachusetts and post-death facts, appellees pointed to long-standing Florida administration and trustee affidavits.
In docket 24P1113, Nesbetta v. Tucker et al., counsel debated whether Massachusetts courts have subject-matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Trust Code and whether the trust's principal place of administration is Massachusetts or Florida.
Elsa Diaz Alonso for the appellant argued the 1987 trust language that the instrument "shall be construed, governed, and administered in accordance with Massachusetts law" showed the settlor intended Massachusetts as the place of administration and that post-death actions (a trustee located in Marion, Massachusetts, records and distributions handled in-state) supported Massachusetts jurisdiction.
Edward Notus McConarty for the appellees replied that Massachusetts law governs the jurisdictional inquiry but that the facts—Mary's residence and administration activity in Florida during her life, assets and records in Florida, and affidavits from successor trustees—overwhelmingly show Florida was the principal place of administration; he stressed the appellant bears the burden to prove records or administration took place in Massachusetts.
The panel probed statutory standards, choice-of-law clauses, and how courts determine principal place of administration. The matter was submitted.