Chapter 1 - § 1.14 • FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 1.14 • FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION

Federal court jurisdiction is generally available where (1) it is provided for under the United States Constitution or by federal statute, and (2) in cases of diversity of citizenship where the amount in controversy exceeds a fixed dollar amount — that is, $75,000. Without more, it would appear that probate matters meeting the diversity of citizenship criteria would be triable in federal court.

There are, however, two bases on which a federal court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over probate matters. One is the so-called "probate exception" to federal jurisdiction articulated in 2006 in Marshall v. Marshall.⁸⁷ The other is the so-called "Rooker-Feldman doctrine" applied in Mann v. Boatright⁸⁸ in 2007.

In light of the narrow ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, it seems clear that actions relating to the validity and administration of trusts may be maintained in federal courts so long as the requirements for diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy are met.

ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Americold Logistics LLC, 776 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2015), is a Tenth Circuit case involving a diversity of citizenship question. It held that where the trustee is a party to the suit, such as in a surcharge action against the trustee, the trustee's citizenship controls. However, if the trust itself is a party, the trust's citizenship depends upon the citizenship of the beneficiary.

Moore v. Chase, No. 14-CV-2119-DDC-JPO, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82778 (D. Kan. June 17, 2014), discusses how a federal district court determines whether the amount in controversy has been met in the trust litigation context.

Historically, the federal courts have recognized the so-called "domestic relations" and "probate" exceptions to federal court jurisdiction. Under the domestic relations exception, federal courts lack jurisdiction to decree divorces and award alimony and child support.⁸⁹ Under the narrow and historic application of the probate exception, federal courts would not adjudicate the validity of a will or provide jurisdiction for administration of a decedent's estate.

The historical basis for the exceptions, based in English High Court Chancery jurisdiction, is questionable, or at least unclear. Ankenbrandt v. Richards,⁹⁰ as explained in the prefactory synopsis of the Marshall decision, was intended to rein in the domestic relations exception. The synopsis in Marshall reported that the purpose of the court in that case...