Marshall v. Marshall
Vicki Lynn Marshall sued E. Pierce Marshall (the son of her late husband) for tortious interference with an inter vivos gift. Proceedings began in the Texas probate court, but Vicki also sought protection in federal bankruptcy court. Before the Texas probate court could issue a decision, Vicki received a favorable judgment in bankruptcy court. She then filed a non-suit for her claims pending in the Texas court. Pierce filed a counterclaim against Vicki in the Texas probate court, received a favorable judgment, and then appealed the decision of the bankruptcy court, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the case because it involved probate issues that should be determined in a state court. The federal district court ruled against Pierce, holding that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. It is well established that federal courts may not interfere with state probate proceedings because the laws governing wills are exclusive to each state. When Bankruptcy proceedings also have probate issues, some federal courts have heard the cases on the theory of federal question jurisdiction (the authority of the federal courts to hear a case arising under a feder law, such as the Bankruptcy Code). The Ninth Circuit rejected that view, holding that no federal court may decide matters involving a state’s probate laws, regardless of how the issue may be framed by the parties. It vacated the judgments of both the district and bankruptcy courts.
Questions presented:
1. What is the scope of the probate exception to federal jurisdiction?
2. Did congress intend the probate exception to apply where a federal court is not asked to probate a will, administer an estate, or otherwise assume control of property in the custody of a state
probate court?
3. Did contress intend the probate exception to apply to cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (28 U.S.C. § 133), including the Bankruptcy Code (28 U.S.C. §
1334), or is it limited to cases in which jurisdiction is based on diversity citizenship?
4. Did congress intend the probate exception to apply to cases arising out of trusts, or is it limited to cases involving wills?
