*1 v. DENCKLA et HANSON, EXECUTRIX, et al. al. Argued 10-11, No. 107. March 1958. Decided June 1958.* *Together Hanson, with No. Lewis et al. v. Executrix Trustee, al., to the Court of Delaware. et on certiorari *3 H. in argued appellants
William Foulk the cause for Manley No. him on the 107. With brief were P. Caldwell McCarthy. and Edward
Arthur cause No. Logan argued petitioners 0. the for in him the B. Aubrey 117. on brief Lank. With argued appellees Sol A. Rosenblatt cause for in No. the Redfearn, him 107. on the brief D. H. C. With were Rob- Burns, ert R. H. Ferrell and Charles Roden. Steel, D. Jr. for argued respondents
Edwin cause him 117. Me- No. on a brief were William S. With Jr. B. gonigal, Kirkpatrick, Steel, and Andrew Jr. for respondent. Layton a brief Caleb
On were S. for Wilmington Trust and David F. Trust Anderson the Delaware Co., respondents. Walls, B. Walls,
Robert Jr. filed a brief for respondent. opinion of delivered the Mr. Justice Warren Chief the Court. part right $400,000, controversy concerns the
This aby in Delaware established corpus of trust of group One Florida. domiciled settlor later who became passed urge property this claimants, “legatees,” of will, which was residuary of the settlor’s under the clause Florida courts The probate in Florida. admitted to Other 2d 378. position. So. have sustained contend that “beneficiaries,” “appointees” claimants, the settlor’s exercise passed pursuant deed inter vivos created adopted this position The Delaware courts of trust. deter full and credit to the Florida refused to accord faith acquired mination court had not because party, over an the Delaware indispensable - Del. -, postponed A. 819. trustee. 2d We 107, No. question appeal, in the Florida granted 354 U. to the Delaware S. certiorari No. Court, The here was created trust whose contested Donner, domiciliary 1935. Dora then Browning Pennsylvania, executed a instrument Delaware naming Wilmington Dela- Co., Wilmington, Trust ware, corpus composed as trustee. of securities. *4 for life, Mrs. Donner reserved the income and stated that or paid persons upon the remainder be to such should inter vivos or appoint by such trusts as she should testa- mentary provided instrument. The agreement trust that change trustee, Mrs. Donner could and that she could amend, alter or revoke A agreement any at time. measure over of control trust administration was assured provision only with the of a trust consent appointed “advisor” by the settlor could the trustee (1) sell assets, (2) investments, (3) trust make and par- ticipate any reorganization plan, proceeding, merger or days held in the trust. A after involving securities few Donner the trust was established Mrs. exercised her appointment. appointment replaced by That was Pennsylvania, another 1939. Thereafter she left in 1944 became domiciled in where she remained Florida, until her in 1952. death Mrs. Donner’s will was executed inter day Dec. 1949. On that same she executed vivos appointment whose terms are at issue here.1 After making appointments modest favor of hospital family (the and certain retainers “appointees”),2 she appointed $200,000 to each of two sum trusts previously established with another Delaware trustee, the Delaware Trust Co. The balance of the corpus, at the date of her $1,000,000 death, appointed to her passed executrix. That amount under the resid- uary clause of her will and is not at issue here.
The two trusts with the Delaware Trust Co. were created 1948 Mrs. daughter, Donner’s Elizabeth Donner Hanson, children, for the benefit of Elizabeth’s Donner Joseph Hanson and Donner Winsor. identical they provide terms income not for required beneficiary’s support age 25, should be accumulated to beneficiary when the paid corpus should be % receive the income Upon from the balance for life. death of beneficiary go the remainder was to to such of the beneficiary’s issue or Elizabeth Donner Hanson’s inter vivos or issue as the beneficiary appoint by should testamentary instrument; appointment default of the beneficiary’s issue alive at the death, time of his if none to the issue of Donner Elizabeth Hanson.
Mrs. Donner died Nov. 1952. Her will, which was admitted probate in Florida, named Elizabeth Donner partially The July 7, respect revoked 1950 in a controversy. material to the instant hospital $10,000. qualified received Six servants appointments totalling $7,000. *5 all pay instructed to debts She was as executrix.
Hanson might payable by rea- any be taxes, including which and appoint- of power under the property appointed son the of Wilmington Trust agreement in the trust with ment personal effects, of and household After disposing Co. of prop- the balance her Donner’s directed that Mrs. will trust) from appointed the Delaware erty $1,000,000 (the her the benefit of equal be trusts for paid parts two B. Dorothy R. N. Denckla daughters Katherine R. Stewart. residuary clause that controversy grows
This out begins: the last-mentioned trusts. It created my estate, of “All the residue and remainder rest, whatsoever and real, personal mixed, whereso- my may death, at of be time ever same and interest including any property, rights and all I appointment over which have which effectively my death has not been exercised prior my in favor by me or been exercised me has Executrix, I direct Executrix to deal as my . . .” follows .
Residuary legatees Stewart, already Denckla and $500,000 each, urge recipients over appointed Eliza- $400,000 sister “effectively beth’s children was exercised” and that accordingly pass should property to them. Fourteen after parties peti- months Mrs. Donner’s death these chancery judg- tioned a Florida for a declaratory court “concerning passes ment under resid- what uary clause” of the will. upon Personal service was had following (1) defendants: executrix Elizabeth Donner Hanson, (2) beneficiaries Donner and Joseph Hanson (3) potential beneficiary Donner Winsor, William Roosevelt, Donner also one Elizabeth’s children. Winsor, Curtin Jr., another of Elizabeth’s children and *6 beneficiary trusts, of the Delaware was potential also and served. About a dozen party not named as not be per- nonresidents and could other defendants were Wilmington These the Trust sonally served. included (to the Delaware Trust whom (“trustee”), Co. the Co. shortly Mrs. paid had been after Donner’s $400,000 potential certain were death), individuals who successors Denckla and complainants Stewart, interest the Donner’s appointees most of named Mrs. copy A of and a appointment. pleadings the “Notice and Defend” were sent to each of these defend- Appear locally by ordinary mail, published and notice was ants by required dealing as the statutes construc- exception tive service.3 the of individuals With two complainants whose interests coincided with Denckla and Stewart, none any of the nonresident defendants made appearance. appearing Donner (Elizabeth defendants Hanson children)
and her moved dismiss suit because of indispensable parties, exercise trustees, the Delaware would offend Section of Stat., 1957, 48, by process publication Fla. c. 48.01: “Service of § had, any state, any be upon several of this courts parties any proceeding: mentioned in suit or §48.02 “(1) any legal equitable upon any To enforce or or lien claim to personal property title or interest in or real within any owing any or party court fund held or upon debt process whom can be served within state.
“(5) will, any deed, For the construction of or contract other judicial written instrument for a or declaration enforcement legal any equitable right, title, or claim, lien or interest thereunder.” personal process “Where had, service of be cannot service §48.02: process publication may upon any party, be had or natural including: corporate, unknown, (1) Any known or known or unknown person (2) Anjr corporation legal entity,
natural
...
or other
foreign,
whether its domicile be
domestic or unknown . . . .”
that he
The Chancellor ruled
Amendment.
Fourteenth
defendants
nonresident
jurisdiction over these
lacked
the trust
and because
was had
personal service
because no
jurisdiction of the court.
territorial
was outside the
corpus
parties
far as
As
as to them.
The cause was dismissed
however, he ruled that
concerned,
court were
before the
testamentary and void
In a
dated
Florida law.
decree
applicable
under
passed under
$400,000
he ruled that the
14, 1955,
Jan.
*7
will.
residuary clause of the
litigation
entry
but before
began,
After the Florida
declaratory judgment
a
the executrix instituted
decree,
par-
was entitled to
in Delaware to determine who
action
Except
in the
assets held
that State.
ticipate
trust
beneficiary
appointees,
and several
the addition of
Winsor
Florida
substantially the same as
parties
were
by reg-
Nonresident defendants were notified
litigation.
companies, 'beneficiaries,
All
the trust
istered mail.
appeared
Denckla,
N.
legatees except
and
Katherine
R.
in the
After
the Florida
participated
litigation.
and
enjoined
participa
executrix Hanson from further
court
her
their
tion,
pursued
children
own interests. When
unsuccessfully
the legatees
the Florida decree
entered
was
judicata
dispute.
it as res
of the Delaware
In
urged
1956,
ruled
decree dated Jan.
the Delaware Chancellor
that the
and
power
appointment
were valid under
applicable
law,
corpus
and that
the trust
Delaware
properly
had
been paid to the Delaware Trust Co. and
appointees.
Del. Ch. -,
the other
-
The full question faith first raised in and credit Delaware litigation unsuccessful motion for new *8 trial filed with the Chancellor Jan. 1956. After the 20, Supreme Court decision the matter was renewed aby motion to remand Supreme filed with the Delaware Court. a of Jan. that 14, 1957, decision court denied the motion and affirmed its all respects. Chancellor The Florida was binding decree held not for purposes full faith and credit because the Florida court had personal jurisdiction no companies the trust and no jurisdiction over the trust res.
The for first, issues our decision whether are, in holding jurisdiction erred it had over the nonresi- second, dent and defendants, whether Delaware erred refusing full faith credit to the Florida decree. We need not determine whether Florida bound give was full faith and the credit to decree of the Delaware Chan-
244 seasonably presented question was
cellor since the Johnson, 326 WOW v. Radio Station the Florida court. 120, 128. U. S. of our 107, question The Appeal. The Florida
No. the merits. hearing of jurisdiction postponed until the that as the appeal upon contention predicated pro- Florida statute the facts of case the applied to contrary to the Federal viding for constructive service is But in the state (2). Constitution. 28 U. S. C. § “beneficiaries”) object that (the did not appellants court rather that the applied, but the invalid as statute was cir- jurisdiction the effect of court’s exercise the state right under them of deprived this case cumstances we are without Accordingly, the Federal Constitution.4 jurisdiction must be dismissed. appeal it Cook, Fed. Sav. 474, 482; Wilson S. Charleston v. Alderson, Treating & L. 324 U. S. Assn. for petition papers appeal taken as whereon 2103, granted. C. certiorari is certiorari, § U. S. upon person that a cannot invoke Relying principle right of jurisdiction of this Court vindicate urge appellants standing lack party,5 appellees third complain of a defect in over the nonresi- 4The statute until the record discloses no mention of state petition rehearing In the trial in the Florida Court. question court, appellant’s motion to the federal dismiss raised sought this manner: “The exercise this Court plaintiffs to be would the Con invoked herein contravene stitution and Laws of the State of Florida and Constitution and, particular, 1 of States, Section the Fourteenth United No. R. 41. Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Liberty Burley Co-op. Assn., T. Co. v. G. M. See Warehouse 148; Tyler Indiana, 71, 88; 191 U. Smith v. Registration, Judges the Court 179 U. S. Robertson *9 (Wolfson Kirkham, and Kurland of the Court Jurisdiction ed.), § 298.
245
appearance
no
who have made
companies,
trust
dent
rule that
general
adheres to the
this action. Florida
litigation involving
to
indispensable party
an
trustee is
a party
In the absence
such
validity of the trust.6
adjudicate the con-
proceed
to
a Florida court
acquisition of
troversy.7
required
law
Since state
company8 before
jurisdiction over the nonresident
proceed
action, any
to
empowered
the court was
that
judgment
the court’s
has
defendant affected
in the
personal
interest
outcome”
“direct
substantial
is necessary
challenge
that
to
whether that
Atchison,
T.
F.
Chicago
fact
& S. R.
acquired.
v.
Co.,
Appellants charge offensive Due Amendment Process Clause Fourteenth jurisdiction. because the Florida court was without employ There is no failed to suggestion court reasonably means notice calculated inform non- the pending proceedings,9 resident defendants of or denied an them to be heard in defense of their opportunity alleged defect is absence interests.10 of those 6 Allison, Trueman Fertilizer Co. Winn v. 734, 738; v. 81 So. 2d Strickland, Russ, Wilson v. 633, 17 610, 606, 613; 34 16 Fla. So. Scott, 691, 697; McArthur 340, 396; v. Sadler v. Fla. 113 U. S. Co., Industrial Trust 10, Mass. 97 2d 169. 327 N. E. 7 Balbin, Martinez v. Florida Land Rock 488, 490; 76 So. 2d Phosphate Anderson, Co. v. 512-513, 50 Fla. 39 So. 396. 8 “trust,” Hereafter company” the terms “trust and “trustee” Wilmington have reference to the trust established in 1935 with the Co., unnecessary Trust of which is at issue It is here. Co., $400,000 determine whether the Delaware which the Trust appointed paid remainder interest after and was Mrs. Donner’s death, party is also indispensable proceeding. to this City Hutchinson, Walker v. Mullane v. Central 112; S. U. B. Mabee, Hanover & T. McDonald S. 90. Holly, Roller 176 U.
246 11 of which the courts without
“affiliating circumstances” imposing obligations judgment a may not enter a State inter- affecting in or persons personam) (jurisdiction on rem).12 in quasi in rem or (jurisdiction property ests in do not personam in in classifications rem and the While give jurisdiction,13 rise to all situations that exhaust the affiliating the circumstances they to describe adequate are as accordingly a useful means suggested and serve here, this case. approach jurisdiction. power; on physical In rem Founded in Mabee, 91, juris 243 the rem 90, v. S. McDonald U. the is limited extent its diction of state court authority of sister States.14 the coordinate subject prop presence is the basis of jurisdiction of erty the forum State. within the territorial Gordon, Overby 4 v. Himely, 241, 277; Rose v. Cranch 214, Tangible property poses 177 221-222. no S.U. rule, of this but the problem application situs 11 Jurisdiction, Essays Sunderland, The on Problem of Selected Law, 1270, Constitutional 1272. 12 personam imposes personal liability obligation in judgment A or rem judgment person A one in favor of another. affects on quasi designated persons property. interests of all A rem designated particular persons property. affects interests of plaintiff seeking is In secure types. The latter of two one is pre-existing extinguish subject property in the or claim particular persons. establish the nonexistence of similar interests plaintiff apply what to be other the seeks to he concedes against property of the defendant to the satisfaction of a- claim Restatement, terminology Judgments, him. 5-9. For convenience of quasi rem rem” of “in in rem.” opinion will use “in lieu 13 Co., g., Bank & E. Mullane Central Hanover Trust v. 339 U. S. Carolina, Williams v. 306, 312; Fraser, North 317 U. S. 297. by Necessity, 100 of Pa. L. Rev. Jurisdiction U. 305. Baker, Co., 394, 400; Riley & v. New Baker Eccles v. S. U. 343, 349; Overby Gordon, v. York Trust 177 U. 315 U. S. S. 214, 221-222; Pennoyer Himely, Neff, Rose 714; 4 Cranch 277. controversy.15 In con is often a matter of
intangibles tax, this Court has sidering restrictions on intangible “jurisdiction” concluded Aldrich, limited to a State. Tax Commission v. single McCanless, Curry v. 316 U. S. *11 “jurisdiction” which this type opin the of
Whether
by
ion deals
be exercised
more than one State we
parties
need not decide. The
seem assume
the
to
that
16
subject
the
of
trust assets that form
matter
this action
in
were located
Delaware and not in Florida.
canWe
record
that
nothing
contrary
see
the
assumption,
a
or sufficient to establish
situs in Florida.17
The Florida
held that the
of the
presence
subject
court
property
jurisdiction. Authority
was not
to its
essential
probate
the
construction
domiciliary’s
of its
will,
might
thought
under which the assets
sufficient
pass, was
Intangibles
against
Andrews,
See
Situs of
in Suits
Non-Resident
Claimants, 49 Yale L. J. 241.
16This case does not
the situs
beneficial
concern
of a
interest in
contesting
property.
validity
appellees
trust
These
were
of the
legal
Their
or,
trust.
concern
with the
interest of the trustee
was
Therefore,
invalid,
if the trust was
the settlor.
the relevant factor
stocks, bqnds,
up
is the
here
situs of the
that make
*12
physically
be
in this
order that constructive
of the trust
state in
binding upon
problem presented
be
a non-resident where the
service
adjudicate,
alia,
the
was to
inter
the status of
securities
the court
rights
the
of the non-resident
incorporated in the trust estate and
hold,
entirely
as
It is
with the Henderson case to
therein.
consistent
ruling
jurisdiction
do,
it
we
that the court below erred in
that
lacked
2d,
persons
100
at 385.
over the
of the absent defendants.”
So.
foregoing
invoking
whether the court was
The
leaves unclear
rem,
'personam jurisdiction
trustee,
jurisdiction
or in
over
the
Usher, supra,
an
the trust assets. Henderson v.
which was
action
establishing
testamentary
of the will
trustees for a construction
York,
unnecessary to
trust whose assets were held in New
found it
jurisdiction
response to
the
of the
exercised.
In
the
decide
basis
jurisdictional objections
specially appearing
of
nonresident de-
interpretation
fendant,
ruled:
the
Florida
Court
“Since
primary question
are
will is the
with which we
confronted
constructively
impelled
the res is
least
we are
hold that
at
empowered
that
are
to advise the
this state and
the Florida courts
rights
proceed
it
what
those
have
trustees how to
under
affected
purpose of this suit the will is
res
in it. For the immediate
brought
voluntarily
into the courts
and when that
purposes
is to
intents and
be
the trust created
it
all
construed
692,
Fla.,
So.,
10.
brought with it.”
at
160
at
118
any
the decedent
claim
affilia
the State nor
could
neither
equally
The
Florida domicile is
tion.
settlor-decedent’s
jurisdiction
as a
over the trust assets.
unavailing
basis
the maxim
purpose
For the
rem
that
has its
at the domicile
its owner19 is
personalty
situs
Buskirk,
utility.
Van
a fiction of limited
Green v.
139,
suspect
maxim is no less
when the
The
Wall.
analogous
is that
a decedent.
cases,
domicile
rejected
suggestion
probate
has
decree
Court
that
State where decedent was domiciled has an
rem
effect on
outside the
that
personalty
forum State
could
render it
of nonresidents over
conclusive on
interests
jurisdiction. Riley
there
personal
whom
was no
v. New
Co.,
Baker,
York Trust
S.
Baker v.
353;
U.
Overby
Gordon,
Eccles &
Prior to the Fourteenth an Amendment exercise of jurisdiction over or persons outside forum thought State was nullity,21 be absolute but the mat- arguendo We assume purpose for the of this discussion that trust was subject invalid so that Mrs. Donner was the “owner” of the property. *13 20Though analogous, squarely point. cases They these are not efficacy judgments concerned the of such in the courts of another sovereign, while the here is issue such an exercise of jurisdiction within the forum State. 21 Pennoyer Neff, See 714, 720-728, 732; Story, 95 v. Com (6th mentaries on the 1865), 539, 550-551; of Laws Conflict ed. §§ Cooley, (1st 1868), 404-405; Constitutional Limitations ed. Rhein stein, The Jurisdiction, Bases of Constitutional U. of Chi. L. Rev. 775, 792-793. over this Court a state law which question
ter remained authority.22 adoption of that With exercised no per purporting to bind any judgment Amendment, acquired the court had not of a defendant over whom son State as well was void within the personam jurisdiction Nearly S. 714. a Pennoyer Neff, v. 95 U. as without. upon being this called century has without Court passed judgment dealing an in rem with to apply principle to invalidity of such forum property outside the State. to have been forum State seems judgment within the a State is for good reason. Since assumed —and person attempting to bind judgment bidden to enter right to jurisdiction, it has even less over whom it has no extinguish to the interest of judgment purporting enter a has no over court person such a which the far it to Therefore, purports so as jurisdiction.23 rest upon assets, the trust jurisdiction over Indus cannot be sustained. Sadler v. the Florida court Co., E. 169. trial Trust 327 Mass. 97 N. 2d jurisdiction. argu- Appellees’ stronger personam jurisdiction over the Delaware personam ment is for in of this They urge that the circumstances case trustee. affiliation with State of Florida amount sufficient personal jurisdiction to exercise empower its courts Principal placed this nonresident defendant. reliance Co., 355 upon McGee International Ins. S. 220. v. U. Life per- of expanding In McGee the Court noted the trend technological sonal over nonresidents. As Baker, Baker Eccles See & supra. Pennoyer Neff, holding When This was forecast in Amendment, considering Court the effect of the Fourteenth against declared that in actions nonresidents substituted service was brought “property permissible only in the State is under the where court, subjected by process disposition control of its S., adapted purpose (Emphasis supplied.) . . .” . 95 U. at 733.
251
progress has increased the flow of commerce between
States,
the need for jurisdiction over nonresidents has
undergone a similar increase. At the
time, progress
same
in communications
transportation
has made the
defense of a
suit
a foreign tribunal
less burdensome.
In response to these
the requirements
per-
changes,,
sonal
over nonresidents have evolved from
rigid
Pennoyer
rule of
Neff,
v.
714,
U. S.
to the
flexible standard of International Shoe
Washing
Co. v.
ton,
failWe
to find such
contacts
the circumstances of
this case. The defendant
company
no office in
has
Florida, and transacts no business there. None of the
trust assets has ever been held or
in Florida,
administered
and the record discloses no solicitation of
business
in person
State either
byor mail. Cf. International Shoe
Co. Washington,
310;
U. S.
McGee v. International
Co.,
Ins.
U. S.
Travelers Health Assn. v.
Life
Virginia,
The cause of action in this case is not one that arises out of an act done or transaction consummated in the forum State. In that respect, it differs from McGee International Li Ins. and the cases there fe In McGee, cited. the nonresident defendant solicited a reinsurance agreement with a resident of California. *15 and the insurance State, in that accepted
The offer was until the insured’s from there premiums were mailed providing in has interest California Noting death. insurers nonresident its residents when effective redress in they have solicited on claims insurance pay refuse to the suit because upheld the Court State, that substantial connec a which had on contract “was based involves this action In contrast, tion that State.” entered without that was validity agreement of an agreement the forum State. any connection with incorpo by company in Delaware trust was executed Pennsyl domiciled in that State and settlor rated agree Florida had to the vania. The first relationship settlor became domiciled years ment was later when the her the trust income to there, and trustee remitted on sev From Florida Mrs. Donner carried that State. may compared be eral bits of trust administration that McGee.24, But the record mailing premiums to the any performed no instance in which trustee discloses relationship acts in to the Florida that bear the same agreement Consequently, as the solicitation in McGee. obligation cannot be to enforce an be said to one suit privilege that arose from a the defendant exercised Washington, Florida. Cf. International Shoe Co. This from McGee U. S. 319. case also different special had legislation that there the State enacted (Unauthorized Act) to exercise what Insurers Process in providing McGee called its “manifest interest” effec tive injured redress for citizens had been nonresi who in an engaged activity dents that treats as State exceptional subjects special Cf. Trav regulation.
24By changed 5, 1946, a letter Feb. Mrs. the com dated Donner pensation paid 2, 1947, April be the trust advisor. she revoked returning $75,000, trust as to amount to Decem the trustee ber 22, To these acts be added the of the two execution powers appointment mentioned earlier. 643, 647-649; Virginia, Assn. v.
elers Health Goodman, 623, 627; Hess v. Doherty & Co. v. U. Pawloski, S. 352. powers appointment in Florida of the
The execution appointees beneficiaries and claim does under which the with the give substantial connection con validity It of the tract on which this suit is based. is the not the is at issue agreement, appointment, trust rule that purpose applying here.25 For the its of a trust is determined the law of the State creation, Florida ruled that its “republication” original amounted to a instru *16 ment in a rul purposes Florida. For choice-of-law such ing may be but we think it an insubstantial justified, connection the agreement purposes for of determining the question personal jurisdiction of over a nonresident defendant. The activity unilateral of those relationship who claim some awith nonresident defendant satisfy cannot the requirement of contact with forum the application State. The vary of that rule will with the quality and nature of activity, the defendant’s but it is essential each case that there be some act which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege conducting of activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits protections of Inter its laws. national Shoe Co. Washington, 310, Supreme The opinion repeated Florida Court’s makes- references “invalidity” trust, to the language and uses other of like import. 2d, 381, 382, 383, 384, ruling See 100 So. at 385. Its that “appointments” pass the and 1950 were ineffective to title to property (because lacking requisite formalities) testamentary proceeded ruling agreement from this initial the trust “invalid,” 2d, “illusory,” 2d, So. at or 100 So. at power appointment. therefore suggestion created no of There was no that the was ineffective as an exercise of whatever agreement. was created the trust of appoint- of her Florida execution settlor’s in this of an act such remedy
ment absence cannot case. and most of the settlor urged
It that because is in Florida were domiciled appointees and beneficiaries per- able to exercise should be the courts that State This is trustees. over nonresident jurisdiction sonal over the exec- personal jurisdiction sequitur. non With nothing in federal there is legatees, appointees, utor, adjudicating concerning from prevent law to n respective rights and But parties. liabilities of those As its so. understand has chosen do we whom the law, indispensable party over the trustee is empowered before is acquire court must it proceeding affecting enter acquire jurisdiction by being trust.26 It does not or gravity” controversy, the “center of the most is litigation. personal convenient location The issue jurisdiction, not It resolved this case choice law. by considering the acts As have trustee. we they jurisdiction.27 are indicated, insufficient to sustain the it sustained the nonresident Because unnecessary the Florida it trustees, Court found to determine whether Florida law made those defendants *17 indispensable parties of this the circumstances case. Our conclusion that Florida was without over trustee, corpus Delaware or the trust in that held State, requires that we make that in the determination first instance. As we noted earlier, have Supreme Court has held repeatedly that trustee is an
26
supra.
6,
See note
27
unnecessary any
This
appel
conclusion makes
consideration of
agreement
lants’ contention
that
contacts
had
slight
so
process
Florida were
that it was' a denial of due
of law to
validity, by
determine its
v.
Florida law. See Home Insurance Co.
Dick,
255 a Florida court has party without whom indispensable adjudicate affecting controversies no judgment the Florida must of a trust.28 For that reason trustees but only as to the nonresident be reversed the Florida court appellants, also as to over whom admittedly jurisdiction. had reasons The Delaware Certiorari. The same
No. require compel that reversal under no affirmance of the Delaware one. Delaware is judg obligation give full faith and credit to Florida the Due ment invalid Florida because offensive to Amendment. 28 Process Clause Fourteenth passage U. S. C. 1738. Even before of the Fourteenth § in refusing Amendment this Court sustained courts state full that judgments faith and credit to entered courts were without defendants. over nonresident D’Arcy Ketchum, 11 165; Lanning, Hall v. How. Baker, Co., U. S. 160. Baker See Eccles & Riley v. New York Trust 343. Since U. S. Delaware was entitled to conclude that Florida law made company the trust an it under indispensable party, obligation no give any the Florida faith and judgpent against parties juris credit —even over whom Florida’s diction unquestioned. suggested
It is that disposition improper this is —that the Delaware case should be held while the Florida cause is give remanded to that court an to deter- opportunity mine indispensable party whether the trustee is an in the this circumstances of case. But this is not a case like Pitcairn, appropriate Herb v. it where is clarify ambiguity remand for the state court to opinion adequate ground its reveal an state deprive would us of to affect the result of the controversy. Nor circumstance where the state 7, supra. notes 6 and See *18 state law question on the ruled has never
court open was left Although question deciding. arewe authority from which Florida ample there is case, in this answer. appropriate may determine we is a judgment final to the first primacy The rule full faith and requirement to the incident necessary judg- whether is to determine only function Our credit. In Federal Constitution. with the are consistent ments judgment we Delaware’s determining the correctness from the entitled to conclude look to what Delaware judg- court’s time the Delaware authorities at the Florida affirmance of correct To entered. withhold ment was time to rule on until Florida has had judgment Delaware litigation in the participating be question would another its outcome. adjudicating instead of Court Supreme Delaware judgment of the of the Florida and the Court affirmed, proceedings the cause is remanded is reversed and opinion. inconsistent with
It is so ordered. Black, Burton whom Mr. Justice Mr. Justice dissenting. join, Mr. Justice Brennan adjudicate of Florida had I believe the courts of the made appointment the effectiveness to all respect those who were notified Mrs. Donner with be opportunity heard proceedings given of the Four- violating without the Due Process Clause it correct, teenth If this is follows Amendment.1 assump my judgment it is a mistake to decide this case on the trust established in 1935 tion that the Florida courts invalidated quite living Pennsylvania. while It seems Mrs. Donner she was purpose. such I understand clear to me that those courts had no As providing it, they held was that an made all part disposition for the of the trust after Mrs. Donner’s *19 refusing give prior erred in the Delaware courts Const., full faith and credit. Art. C. 1738. IV, 1;§ § 28 U. S.
Mrs. Donner was domiciled Florida from 1944 until appointment her death 1952. The controversial in 1949. It provided persons made there certain property were to receive a share of the the Dela- held agreement upon ware “trustee” under the so-called trust her death. she died Mrs. Until Donner received the property, pos- entire income from this and at all times sessed absolute appointment revoke or alter the dispose and to of the as property pleased. prac- she As tical matter she also retained manage- control over the ment of property, the “trustee” in being Delaware little than a A more custodian.2 number benefi- ciaries of appointment, including those who were to receive more than of the assets resi- involved, were 95% dents of at the time the appointment was made as well as present when the suit appointed was filed. The property intangibles consisted of which had no real situs in any particular although State Mrs. Donner taxes paid property on the Florida. day
The same the 1949 appointment was made Mrs. will, Donner executed a which after her death was duly probated a Florida court. The will contained residuary clause providing for the distribution of all of (1) testamentary death was complete since she retained control over appointed property (2) died, until she ineffective because not executed in accordance the Florida statute of wills. 2Among things other right appoint Mrs. Donner reserved serving “advisers” purchases, at her sufferance who controlled all sales and investments the “trustee.” Evidence before the Dela ware advisers, “trustee,” courts indicated that these not the Delaware actually respect made affecting all decisions with to transactions property mechanically they “trust” and that the “trustee” acted as directed. previously bequeathed, including “any not property
her and interest which I property, rights and all my death has prior which appointment have by me . . . Thus if effectively exercised been was ineffective the the 1949 be came back into Mrs. Donner’s estate to dis- involved residuary might clause of her will. As tributed under the present litigation legatees arose when anticipated be *20 seeking a brought an action the Florida courts deter- appointment valid. The bene- mination whether was some of whom live outside appointment, ficiaries of the trustee defendants. Florida, and the Delaware were They timely adequate had notice of the suit and an opportunity appear. to obtain counsel and
In light foregoing quite circumstances it seems clear to me that there is nothing the Due Process Clause right which denies Florida the to determine whether Mrs. appointment against Donner’s valid as its statute of wills. This disposition, designed which was to take effect after her death, very had close and substantial connec only tions with that Not the appointment State. domiciliary made a of Florida, pri but the mary my beneficiaries also lived in that State. view hardly it could be denied that Florida had sufficient interest so that a court with might properly apply law, if it chose, determine whether the appointment was effectual. Watson v. Employers Lia bility Ozlin, Assurance Corp., Osborn 53. True, question U. S. whether the of a law State applied can be to a transaction is different from the question whether the courts of that jurisdic State have tion to enter a judgment, but the closely two are often related and ato substantial degree depend upon similar considerations. It seems to me that where transaction has as relationship much to a State as Mrs. Donner’s appointment had to Florida its courts ought to have adjudicate arising controversies out of that litigation impose unless there would transaction, such heavy disproportionate burden on nonresident de that it fendant would offend what this Court has referred play to as fair “traditional notions of and substantial justice.” Meyer, Milliken v. Inter 457, 463; U. S. Washington, national Shoe Co. far nonresident defendants are
So as the here concerned I nothing approaches degree can see which of unfair Florida, principal ness. the home of the contenders for Mrs. largess, reasonably Donner’s was a convenient forum Certainly nothing fundamentally for all.3 there is unfair in subjecting corporate trustee the jurisdic tion of the Florida courts. It chose to maintain business relations with Mrs. eight years, Donner that State for regularly communicating respect with her with to the business of the including very question.
Florida’s interest in the of Mrs. Donner’s *21 emphatic is made more her by the fact that is being will in that administered State. It has tradi- tionally been the rule that person the State where a is domiciled at the time proper place of his death is the will, provi- determine the of his to construe its sions and to marshal and distribute his personal property. Here seriously Florida was winding up concerned with Mrs. Donner’s estate finally determining and with what property was to be distributed under her will. fact this suit brought very for that purpose.
The Court’s decision juris- that Florida did not have (and diction over the trustee inferentially the nonresident beneficiaries) principles stems from part stated the better suggestion forum, is made that Delaware was a more suitable plain but the legatees fact is that none of the has beneficiaries or ever resided in that State. That Neff, Pennoyer in century ago
of a
a
when busi-
at
time
case was decided
landmark
travel
local
nature
predominantly
affairs
ness
were
even
costly and sometimes
difficult,
between States
prin-
the broad
laid down
There the Court
dangerous.
nonresidents
subject
a
ciple that
could
State
they
served with
were
jurisdiction
its courts unless
appeared,
voluntarily
its
or
process within
boundaries
in the
they
State.
to the extent
had
except
increasing
constantly
passed
have
years
But as
tremendous
rapidity
ease and
of communication
steady
to a
activity have led
growth of interstate business
strict
limits on state
relaxation of the
and inevitable
In the
in that case.
course
announced
the old
landmarks have been
jurisdictional
this evolution
many
instances
now
left far behind so that
States
nonresidents not ame-
properly exercise
their
Yet further relaxa-
nable
service within
borders.4
tion
have
seems
Of course we
not reached
certain.
point
significance,
where state boundaries are without
I
a view here. There is
suggest
and do not mean
such
litigation
no
For
aris-
dealing
need to do so.
we are
with
ing from transaction that had an abundance
close
substantial
of Florida.
connections with the State
Perhaps
nearly
point
the decision most
Mul
lane Central Hanover Bank
Trust
&
U. S. 306.
In that case
per
the Court held
could enter a
State
against
sonal
of a
favor
trustee
nonresident
beneficiaries
though they
trust even
not served
were
process
in that
only
State. So far as
their
appeared,
connection with the State was
the fact that
trust was
*22
4 See,
220;
g.,
e.
v.
355 U. S.
McGee
International
Ins.
Life
v.
Virginia
Corporation Comm’n,
Travelers
ex
Health Assn.
rel. State
643;
310;
International Shoe Co. v.
326 U. S.
Washington,
457; Henry
Milliken Meyer,
Doherty
311 U. S.
& Co. v. Good
L.
294 U. S.
Hess man,
Even if it be assumed that is its Court jurisdictional I its holding, disposition think of the two It unjustified. judgment cases is reverses the trustee ground Court on the may be, be, indispensable party but need not to the litigation under Florida law. At the same time judgment. Although it affirms the Delaware subsequent proceed- form the Florida case is remanded for further ings not inconsistent with the Court’s the effect opinion, is that obliged give the Florida courts will be full faith and credit judgment. to the Delaware This means the to,deter- Florida courts will never have an opportunity mine whether the trustee is ah indispensable party. The Florida judgment completely wiped is thus even out as parties to those who make their homes in that State, though and even is acknowledges nothing Court there in the precludes Constitution which Florida from enter- ing binding judgment against for or them. It be argued that the Delaware the first to become final and therefore is prevail. only entitled to But it comes first my because the Court makes it so. judg- ment the proper thing to do would be to hold the Dela- ware case until the opportunity Florida courts had an There was no in rem litigation basis for since the personal liability concerned the of the trustee and did not involve property. the trust *23 indispensable party. trustee is whether
decide quite it is case I think of this circumstances Under the Trueman say he not. See they probable would rea- Allison, I see no 2d 734. can Co. v. 81 So. Fertilizer plaintiffs of deprive Florida should why son this Court on the basis of Florida defendants judgment against their out might well turn Florida law which speculation about to be unwarranted. Douglas, dissenting. Justice
Mr. will, in Her The testatrix died domiciled Florida. Florida, in was acquired after she had domicile made she a domi- probated there. Prior to the time established in Dela- cile in Florida a trust instrument she executed during itsBy ware. terms she was to receive the income her undistributed principal life. On her death the provided any appoint- of go power income were as or, failing that, ment her last will and testament. After she she executed had become domiciled power appointment; provided and she also her will effectively that if power appointment had not been exercised, trust, consisting under intangibles, pass designated should to certain trusts. power
The Florida held that the court testamentary being in character and not a valid testamentary disposition requisite for lack of the wit- nesses, failed as a will under Florida law. Therefore the property passed under the 2d 378. will. So.
Distribution of the of the assets estate could not be made without determining
appointment.
of appointment, being inte-
grated
will,
with the
subject
as much
to construc-
tion
interpretation by
the Florida
as
court
the will
itself. Of course one not
or
party
privy
io
proceedings is
not bound
it and
liti-
separately
can
Riley
to assets
other States. See
right
gate
Baker,
Co.,
Baker
York Trust
New
no
But we have
such sit-
Eccles &
same through legatees there; are absent trustee so close to agency whom others claim was privy to be held to be with her —in other decedent as represent her so interest with as words identified right. legal same notes corpus Properly speaking intangibles of the trust. such assets are “physical” have no location. embodiment that But their in docu purposes ments treated for as the most assets themselves makes them tangibles. partake Sohmer, of the nature of Cf. Wheeler S.U. 434, 439. evidencing The ownership documents the trust were of Jasper Bank, Delaware, Nat. held cf. Bank First 258 U. S. 119, by obligee trustee who of the Delaware credit instruments and the owner of stock. The location of record obligors corporations appear. and the do not domicile instrument was executed in Delaware a settlor then Pennsylvania. any opinion expressing domiciled in on the Without significance unnamed, factors we note that none these or other relates Florida. jurisdiction jurisdiction.18 But requisite to confer contingent role of this upon be predicated cannot “in efficacy of a so-called will. Whatever admittedly passing under a rem” jurisdiction over assets rem adjudi- no will, acquires local a State inter vivos simply because dispositions cate the under will might augment passing its estate decision were in its courts. If such basis probated sustained, enjoy courts would nationwide service probate process adjudicate property with which interests held opinion states: “We The Florida Court’s [in Usher, Henderson v. 118 Fla. 160 So. constructive serv 9] juris ice was valid in that state of the record because substantive virtue of of a diction existed the Florida court construction will, having involved, the testator been domiciled which also it assets in Florida. observed that was not essential We