The Supreme Court takes exception to the "probate exception" Mrs. Smith goes to Washington.

• Author: Herb, James A.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two notable opinions in 2006 affecting federal jurisdiction.

Wachovia v. Schmidt, 126 S. Ct. 941 (2006), was decided on January 17, 2006. The Supreme Court held, for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, that a federally chartered national bank is a citizen only of the state which houses its main office, and is not a citizen in every state in which it maintains a branch office. As a result, there will be more instances in which a national bank can sue or be sued in, or can remove a case to, federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. This article does not further discuss Wachovia.

Marshall v. Marshall, 126 S. Ct. 1735 (2006), was decided on May 1, 2006, and is referred to by some as the "Anna Nicole Smith case." Marshall addresses the "probate exception" to federal jurisdiction.

This article summarizes probate jurisdiction in Florida state courts, then summarizes the probate exception to federal jurisdiction both before and after Marshall.

Probate Administration in Florida State Courts

* Subject Matter Jurisdiction--Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to adjudicate the class of proceedings to which a particular proceeding belongs. (1) Court proceedings taken without subject matter jurisdiction are void. (2)

Exclusive original jurisdiction to administer the estates of decedents is vested by the Florida Constitution in the circuit courts. More precisely, the circuit courts have exclusive original jurisdiction "of proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate of decedents and minors, the granting of letters testamentary, guardianship, involuntary hospitalization, the determination of incompetency, and other jurisdiction usually pertaining to courts of probate." (3)

* In rem Proceedings--"Probate proceedings are in rem proceedings." (4) This was true under the former probate code and in the absence of a statute on point. (5) An "in rem" proceeding is one directed against property and against anyone claiming an interest in the property. (6) "In personam" jurisdiction is invoked against a person, as distinguished from being invoked against a thing.

If a court has jurisdiction over property, and if persons who may have an interest are given reasonable notice complying with due process requirements, the court may decide the rights of persons to that property. (7) In a proceeding to admit a will to probate, the subject or "rem" is the will.8 In most other probate proceedings, the "rem" is the estate being administered. (9)

The purposes of administering a decedent's estate are to collect the assets of the decedent, pay claims against the estate, and distribute the remaining assets to those entitled to receive them. (10) The administration of a decedent's estate can, thus, be a genuine in rem proceeding.

Some proceedings that affect the administration of a decedent's estate are not in rem, but are in personam. These types of proceedings do not affect the in rem nature of the administration proceeding.

Federal Jurisdiction and the "Probate Exception"

* The U.S. Supreme Court's Analysis Leading up to Marshall--Over the course of more than a century, the Supreme Court has developed a doctrine now commonly referred to as the "probate exception" to federal jurisdiction. Prior to its decision in Marshall, the Supreme Court's last statement of the doctrine is found in Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 494 (1946):

It is true that a federal court has no jurisdiction to probate a will or administer an estate.... But it has been established by a long series of decisions of this Court that federal courts of equity have jurisdiction to entertain suits "in favor of creditors, legatees and heirs" and other claimants against a decedent's estate "to establish their claims" so long as the federal court does not interfere with the probate proceedings or assume general jurisdiction of the probate or control of the property in the custody of the state court. [citations omitted].

[W]hile a federal court may not exercise its jurisdiction to disturb or affect the possession of property in the custody of a state court, ... it may exercise its jurisdiction to adjudicate rights in such property where the final judgment does not undertake to interfere with the state court's possession save to the extent that the state court is bound by the judgment to recognize the right adjudicated by the federal court. [Citations omitted.]

The Supreme Court in Marshall...