Marshall v. Marshall

2006-05-01

Headline: Limits probate exception and lets a widow pursue her tort claim in federal court, reversing the Ninth Circuit and allowing a federal jury to decide alleged interference by the decedent’s son.

Holding: The Court held that federal courts may hear the widow’s tort claim for interference with an expected gift, rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s broad probate-exception reading and confirming federal jurisdiction in this case.

Real World Impact:

Allows federal courts to hear tort claims about interference with expected inheritances.
Prevents states from forcing all probate-related torts into state probate courts.
Leaves bankruptcy "core" status and preclusion issues for remand decision.

Topics: probate rules, inheritance disputes, federal vs state courts, bankruptcy and torts

Summary

Background

A widow (Vickie, also known as Anna Nicole Smith) and the son of her late husband (Pierce) fought over whether she should receive a promised gift. While the husband’s estate was in Texas probate court, the widow filed for bankruptcy in California. Pierce filed a claim in bankruptcy court and alleged defamation; the widow counterclaimed that Pierce tortiously interfered with an expected gift and prevented a trust from taking effect. The bankruptcy and district courts entered judgments for the widow and awarded substantial damages; the Texas Probate Court later declared the will and trust valid.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the longstanding “probate exception” barred federal courts from hearing the widow’s tort claim. The Court examined its prior decision in Markham and concluded the probate exception is narrow: it reserves to state probate courts the probate or annulment of a will, the administration of an estate, and in rem control over property in a state court’s custody. The Court held that the widow’s claim sought an in personam judgment for tortious interference and did not seek to take property in the state court’s custody, so federal jurisdiction was proper. The Ninth Circuit’s broader reading of the exception was rejected.

Real world impact

The ruling means federal courts may hear similar tort claims about interference with expected inheritances so long as the suit does not disturb property already in a state probate court’s physical control. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded, leaving unresolved issues (for example, whether the claim is a bankruptcy “core” matter and preclusion defenses) for further proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment and argued more strongly that there should be no separate probate exception at all, urging that existing jurisdictional rules suffice.