Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1950 · Civil Procedure

noticedue processservice of processreasonably calculatedFourteenth AmendmentDue Process Clausenoticepublication notice

Facts

Central Hanover Bank established a common trust fund under New York Banking Law and later petitioned for judicial settlement of its first account. The only notice of the accounting proceeding was publication in a local newspaper, which generally described the fund and participating trusts without naming beneficiaries. The trustee, however, had on its books the names and addresses of some present income beneficiaries and had previously mailed them notice when their trusts first entered the common fund. The decree in the accounting would conclusively settle all questions respecting management of the common fund and terminate beneficiaries' rights to challenge the trustee's conduct for the period covered.

Issue

Whether notice by newspaper publication alone in a judicial settlement of a common trust fund account satisfies the Fourteenth Amendment's due process requirements for beneficiaries whose property rights may be cut off, especially when some beneficiaries' names and addresses are known to the trustee.

Rule

An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt, and publication alone is insufficient for persons whose names and addresses are known when mail or similarly feasible means are available. Publication may suffice for missing, unknown, or not reasonably ascertainable persons, or where more adequate notice is not reasonably practicable.

🔒

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.

Lakeshore Fiduciary Services, a trustee in Cleveland, files a court proceeding to settle its administration of a pooled guardianship fund. The decree will bar participants from later challenging the trustee's management during the covered period. Lakeshore has current mailing addresses for 240 adult income recipients but gives notice only by publishing a general announcement in a Toledo newspaper for four weeks.

If several recipients later argue the decree cannot bind them, how should a court rule?

Explanation. Due process requires notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the proceeding and allow objections. When names and addresses are known, publication alone is a mere gesture if ordinary mail is available and practical. The fund's pooled nature and the number of interested persons do not eliminate the need for mailed notice to known persons whose whereabouts are at hand. (Derived from Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950).)