Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977): The cornerstone of the court’s jurisdictional analysis. Shaffer holds that the minimum-contacts due process standard applies to all assertions of state-court jurisdiction, whether labeled in rem or in personam. Nevada relied on Shaffer to reject the notion that NRS 164.010’s in rem grant obviates personal jurisdiction over an indispensable nonresident trustee.
• International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), and progeny: The court applied the specific jurisdiction framework—purposeful availment/direction, “arise out of or relate to,” and reasonableness/fair play—to BOA’s contacts.
• Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021): Clarified that the “arise out of or relate to” prong does not require strict causation; a sufficiently strong relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation can suffice. Even under this broadened standard, Nevada found no relation: BOA’s Nevada presence had no relevant link to the trust administration decisions at issue.
• Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 582 U.S. 255 (2017): Reinforced that even continuous activity in a state cannot support jurisdiction for suits unrelated to that activity. The court used this to reject reliance on BOA’s generic Nevada footprint.
• Dogra v. Liles, 129 Nev. 932, 314 P.3d 952 (2013): A plaintiff’s unilateral activity cannot create forum contacts for the defendant. Applied to appellant’s outreach to BOA’s Las Vegas officer.
• In re Tr. of Paul D. Burgauer Revocable Living Tr., 138 Nev. 801, 521 P.3d 1160 (2022): Nevada’s recent trust-jurisdiction decision. Burgauer recognized NRS 164.010(5)(b) as a statutory hook for personal jurisdiction in some circumstances but emphasized that due process still requires minimum contacts where a trustee contests jurisdiction. Goldstein extends Burgauer by holding that even when the petition seeks trust construction (not damages against the trustee), the trustee remains indispensable, and minimum-contacts analysis still applies.
• Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023): Distinguished. Mallory upheld jurisdiction under a Pennsylvania statute expressly conditioning registration on consent to general jurisdiction. Nevada emphasized that its statutes differ: NRS 77.440 says registered-agent appointment does not, by itself, create personal jurisdiction. Mallory’s plurality also cautioned against broad extrapolation to other regimes.
• Robinson v. Kind, 23 Nev. 330, 47 P. 1 (1896); Causey v. Carpenters S. Nev. Vacation Tr., 95 Nev. 609, 600 P.2d 244 (1979): Nevada’s longstanding view that trustees, as holders of legal title and administrators of the trust, are necessary parties and the real parties in interest for litigation affecting trust administration.
• Out-of-state trust authorities: Trueman Fertilizer (Fla.), Weldon (Mo.), Stephens (Miss.), Hawthorne (La.), and First American Bank of Virginia v. Reilly (Ind.). These decisions uniformly treat trustees as indispensable in actions impacting administration or construction, reinforcing Nevada’s conclusion.
• Statutory interpretation and procedure: Orbitz Worldwide v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (standard for statutory interpretation); Fulbright & Jaworski (de novo review of personal jurisdiction); NRS 14.065(1) (Nevada long-arm); NRCP 19 (necessary/indispensable party); NRS 164.010(5)(b) (special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction); NRS 77.440 (registered-agent appointment does not create jurisdiction).

Legal Reasoning

1. Trustee as a necessary and indispensable party (NRCP 19): The trustee’s duties include interpreting and implementing the trust consistent with the settlor’s intent. A judicial construction of the no‑contest clause would change the permissible scope of litigation by the beneficiary, and could impinge upon BOA’s “absolute discretion” over trust situs—core administrative functions. Under NRCP 19(a), complete relief could not be accorded, and BOA’s interests would be impaired if BOA were absent. Under NRCP 19(b), BOA was indispensable because relief could not be shaped to avoid prejudicing BOA’s rights; and a viable alternative forum existed (Missouri courts had already exercised jurisdiction over the trustee and beneficiaries).
2. In rem jurisdiction under NRS 164.010 does not negate due process: Although the in rem prerequisites of NRS 164.010(1) were met, the statute itself acknowledges the separate question of personal jurisdiction (NRS 164.010(5)(b)), permitting special appearances to contest it. Per Shaffer, rebranding a proceeding as in rem does not evade minimum-contacts scrutiny, particularly where the property is not the subject matter of the litigation and the trust res is not in Nevada. The petition sought a declaratory construction, not adjudication of rights in Nevada-located property.
3. No consent by registration (NRS 14.020 vs. NRS 77.440): Nevada’s statutory scheme expressly forecloses the argument that appointing a registered agent equals consent to personal jurisdiction. NRS 77.440 controls as the more specific and more recent statute. Mallory concerned a different statutory regime explicitly conditioning registration on consent to general jurisdiction and does not alter Nevada’s outcome.
4. No specific personal jurisdiction over BOA:
   • Purposeful availment: BOA purposefully availed itself of Nevada’s market by operating numerous branches and ATMs statewide. This satisfied the first prong.
   • “Arise out of or relate to”: The claim must relate to the forum contacts. The trust has been administered in Missouri for over two decades. The denial of the situs-transfer request was made by the St. Louis team; the Las Vegas officer’s letter reflected and deferred to that team and was prompted by appellant’s outreach. Unlike Ford Motor, where the defendant’s forum activities directly related to the product and harm, BOA’s Nevada presence bore no meaningful relation to the challenged administrative decisions. The second prong failed.
   • Reasonableness: Without minimum contacts, jurisdiction would offend “fair play and substantial justice,” so the court did not reach an extensive analysis of this prong.

Impact and Practical Consequences

For Nevada Trust Litigation

• Personal jurisdiction is mandatory when trustee participation is indispensable: Petitioners cannot rely on NRS 164.010’s in rem language to litigate trust construction or administrative discretion issues in Nevada absent personal jurisdiction over the trustee.
• Registered-agent appointment is not a shortcut: Litigants may not invoke NRS 14.020 registration to manufacture consent jurisdiction; NRS 77.440 blocks that route.
• Forum shopping constrained: Beneficiaries seeking a more favorable forum for trust construction (e.g., to avoid no‑contest exposure or to move situs) must proceed where the trustee is amenable to suit—often at the administrative situs—or create Nevada contacts that genuinely relate to the claims.
• How to establish jurisdiction going forward:
  • Appoint or confirm a Nevada trustee or co‑trustee such that NRS 164.010(5)(b) and minimum contacts are satisfied.
  • Negotiate or draft trust instruments with explicit forum-selection and consent‑to‑jurisdiction provisions binding on fiduciaries (recognizing enforceability limits and public policy).
  • Develop claim‑related Nevada contacts (e.g., administration decisions made in Nevada; Nevada‑based records, witnesses, or property) such that the claim “relates to” the forum activities.
• No‑contest clause litigation strategy: The decision underscores that preemptive declaratory relief efforts to avoid no‑contest exposure must be filed in a court with jurisdiction over indispensable fiduciaries. Prior adverse Missouri rulings on the clause (2016) further signal the need to litigate where the trustee and contingent remainder beneficiaries are already subject to jurisdiction.

Beyond Trusts: Corporate Consent Jurisdiction in Nevada

• Mallory’s limits in Nevada: This opinion makes clear that, absent a statute like Pennsylvania’s, registration alone does not equal consent. Expect similar arguments to fail in product liability, consumer, and commercial cases relying solely on corporate registration for general jurisdiction.

Banking and Fiduciary Institutions

• National banks and trust companies can conduct general operations in Nevada without being haled into Nevada courts for disputes that do not arise from, or relate to, those Nevada activities.
• However, if fiduciary decisions are made in Nevada, or Nevada offices undertake administration tied to a dispute, specific jurisdiction exposure will increase under Ford Motor’s “relates to” standard.