Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Marshall v. Marshall

Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureFederal JurisdictionProbate ExceptionBankruptcy Jurisdictionprobate exceptionfederal jurisdictionbankruptcyin personam

Facts

Vickie Lynn Marshall, the surviving widow of J. Howard Marshall II, alleged that J. Howard intended to provide for her through a trust, but that his son Pierce tortiously interfered with that expected gift. In Vickie's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, Pierce filed a proof of claim for defamation, and Vickie counterclaimed for tortious interference with an expected gift. Meanwhile, probate proceedings concerning J. Howard's estate were ongoing in Texas, where the will and living trust were declared valid. Vickie sought an in personam money judgment against Pierce in federal court, not probate of a will, annulment of a will, or control of estate property in the custody of the Texas probate court.

Issue

Whether the probate exception to federal jurisdiction barred the federal courts from adjudicating Vickie's state-law tort claim for tortious interference with an expected gift, where she sought an in personam judgment against Pierce and not probate or administration of an estate. Also, whether Texas could make its probate courts exclusively competent to hear that kind of transitory tort claim so as to defeat otherwise proper federal jurisdiction.

Rule

The probate exception reserves to state probate courts the probate or annulment of a will and the administration of a decedent's estate, and it precludes federal courts from disposing of property that is in the custody of a state probate court. But it does not bar federal courts from adjudicating matters outside those confines and otherwise within federal jurisdiction, including in personam claims that do not seek to reach a res in state-court custody. A State also may not, by assigning exclusive jurisdiction to its probate courts, defeat federal jurisdiction over a transitory cause of action.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Denver, Nora Kim sued her late aunt's financial adviser, Evan Doyle, in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction. Nora alleges Evan used fraud and threats to prevent her aunt from making a promised lifetime gift to Nora, and she seeks only compensatory and punitive damages from Evan personally; the aunt's estate is being probated in Colorado state court.

Is the federal court most likely barred from hearing Nora's suit by the probate exception?

Explanation. The majority described the probate exception as narrow. It reserves to state probate courts only the probate or annulment of a will, the administration of a decedent's estate, and efforts to dispose of property in the custody of a state probate court. An otherwise proper federal action seeking an in personam judgment on a tort claim is not barred merely because it relates to an expected gift or inheritance.