Pennington v. Fourth National Bank of Cincinnati

Background

Mrs. Pennington obtained a valid Ohio divorce and sought alimony. To secure payment she joined the Fourth National Bank of Cincinnati because her husband had a deposit account there. The state court enjoined the bank from paying out the deposit, later ordered payments to the wife, and finally required the bank to pay the remaining balance to her. The absent husband, served by publication only and claiming he was not personally notified in Ohio, argued the orders deprived him of property without the Constitution’s due process protections.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether a State may apply property located inside the State to satisfy an absent person’s alimony obligation. It explained that the Constitution does not prevent a State from exercising power over property within its borders, including intangible property like a bank deposit owed by a resident to an absent owner. The Court treated the proceedings as a valid seizure of the husband’s property (a quasi in-rem action) when the bank was enjoined, and it held that such process is lawful provided the property is seized at the start and the owner has an opportunity to be heard.

Real world impact

Because the Court affirmed these principles, states may enforce alimony awards by reaching property located in the state even when the spouse is absent and served by publication. Banks can follow court orders to pay the spouse named in the decree when property has been properly seized. The decision emphasizes the need for property to be in-state, seized at the outset, and for the absent owner to have a chance to contest the claim.