65 F.4th 445
9th Cir.2023Background
- Roger Silk, a California-based tax and estate planner, advised Frank Bond for decades under contracts that awarded "incentive" fees tied to tax savings and payable upon Bond's death.
- After Bond died in 2020, Silk filed a $3.1 million claim in the Baltimore County Orphans’ Court; the Estate disallowed the claim.
- Silk sued the Estate in federal court (breach of contract; alternatively unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel), seeking damages and an accounting to calculate incentive fees.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the probate exception, finding federal adjudication would improperly intrude on Maryland probate functions.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed: applying Marshall and Goncalves, it held the probate exception is limited to (1) probate/annulment of a will, (2) administration of an estate, or (3) assuming in rem jurisdiction over property in probate custody, and none applied here.
- The Ninth Circuit also held Silk made a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction in California based on Bond’s long-running contractual relationship with Silk and related contacts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probate exception bars federal jurisdiction | Silk: federal courts may hear ordinary contract claims against an estate; this suit does not probate a will or administer the estate | Estate: adjudicating Silk’s claim requires estate valuation/appraisal and thus invokes estate administration and probate authority | Reversed: probate exception does not apply; claims are outside its three narrow categories under Marshall/Goncalves |
| Whether ordering an appraisal or valuing assets equals "administration" or "disposal" of estate property | Silk: valuation for contract damages is incidental and does not convert an in personam contract suit into estate administration | Estate: appraisal and potential enforcement against estate assets would interfere with probate and dispose of estate property | Rejected: valuation/accounting incidental to damages does not constitute administration or disposal under the probate exception |
| Whether the suit would require federal courts to assume in rem jurisdiction over property in probate custody | Silk: claims are in personam—seeking money damages against the estate—not an in rem adjudication of the res | Estate: any judgment or appraisal would affect assets in Orphans’ Court custody and thus assume jurisdiction over the res | Rejected: the complaint’s gravamen is contractual in personam relief; in personam judgments are permissible and do not equal assuming control of the res |
| Whether California courts have specific personal jurisdiction over the Estate | Silk: Bond purposefully availed himself of Silk’s California-based services over decades; contacts give rise to this dispute | Estate: contacts are insufficient or inconvenient; forum-shopping and Maryland interests weigh against jurisdiction | Held: Silk made a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction; exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006) (narrows the probate exception and limits it to specific categories)
- Goncalves v. Rady Children’s Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2017) (articulates three-category test for probate exception)
- Three Keys Ltd. v. SR Util. Holding Co., 540 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2008) (discusses in rem vs. in personam distinctions relevant to probate exception)
- Commonwealth Trust Co. of Pittsburgh v. Bradford, 297 U.S. 613 (1936) (holds trust/estate rights adjudications can be in personam, not in rem)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and long‑term contractual relationships support specific jurisdiction)