Caroline Chevalier v. Kimberly Barnhart
2015 WL 5729456
6th Cir.2015Background
- Chevalier (Canadian citizen) and Barnhart (Ohio citizen) married in Ontario in 2007; Chevalier alleges she made ~ $122,708 in loans to Barnhart between 2007–2010 that were not repaid.
- Chevalier sued in federal court (S.D. Ohio) on state-law claims: breach of contract, default on loans, unjust enrichment, fraud, constructive lien, and foreclosure seeking > $75,000 with diversity jurisdiction asserted.
- Barnhart filed for divorce in Ontario after Chevalier filed the federal suit; Barnhart moved to dismiss in federal court invoking the domestic‑relations exception; district court dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
- While the appeal was pending Barnhart died; her estate was substituted and Ohio probate proceedings (administration of estate) commenced, raising the probate‑exception issue.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the domestic‑relations or probate exceptions strip federal courts of jurisdiction and held neither exception barred adjudication; judgment vacated and case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of the domestic‑relations exception | Chevalier framed claims as ordinary tort/contract claims to recover loans; federal court can decide them. | Barnhart argued the suit is the functional equivalent of divorce/property‑division/alimony and thus barred. | Domestic‑relations exception is narrow; Chevalier did not seek divorce, alimony, or child‑custody nor to modify any decree — exception does not apply. |
| Effect of concurrent or prior foreign divorce proceeding | Chevalier noted she seeks money and property remedies, not to dissolve marriage; timing irrelevant to federal jurisdiction. | Barnhart argued federal proceedings would duplicate/ interfere with Canadian divorce and risk incompatible decrees. | Court: jurisdiction depends on the remedy sought, not sequencing; risk of foreign decrees does not expand the domestic‑relations exception. |
| Applicability of the probate exception to nonprobate claims (constructive trust) | Chevalier argued her claims are in personam (breach, unjust enrichment, fraud) and a constructive trust is remedial, not an in rem probate action. | Opponent argued some remedies (lien/foreclosure) implicate estate/property under probate court control. | Constructive‑trust claim is in personam under Ohio law and not barred by probate exception. |
| Effect of Barnhart’s death and probate jurisdiction on foreclosure (quasi in rem) | Chevalier relied on time‑of‑filing rule: at filing no probate court exercised custody over the property, so subsequent probate does not divest federal jurisdiction. | Defendant/estate argued probate court later assumed in rem jurisdiction over property, so probate exception now precludes federal adjudication. | Court held probate exception applies only if state probate court had custody of the res at time of filing; later probate administration did not divest federal jurisdiction over the foreclosure claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (Supreme Court 1992) (domestic‑relations exception limited to divorce, alimony, child custody)
- Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (Supreme Court 2006) (narrows probate exception; reserves to probate courts will probate, annulment, administration and in‑rem control of res)
- Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490 (Supreme Court 1946) (probate‑exception principles and limits on federal interference with state probate)
- Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (Supreme Court 2004) (time‑of‑filing rule for diversity jurisdiction)
- Republic Nat’l Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80 (Supreme Court 1992) (post‑filing changes in control of res do not necessarily divest in rem jurisdiction)
- McLaughlin v. Cotner, 193 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 1999) (artful pleading cannot cloak a request to interpret/modify a divorce decree to invoke federal jurisdiction)
- Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279 (6th Cir. 1998) (domestic‑relations exception does not apply unless plaintiff positively sues for divorce, alimony, or custody)