Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that Anna Nicole Smith could pursue claims against E. Pierce Marshall, the son of Ms. Smith's deceased husband J. Howard Marshall II.

The factual history can be reviewed on the earlier blog articles on this page.

In the Opinion of the Supreme Court, Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. ____ (2006), the Court held that the "Ninth Circuit had no warrant from Congress, or from this Court's decisions, for its sweeping extension of the probate exception recognized in those decisions." Further, because the case did not fall within the exception's scope, the District Court (which had earlier awarded Ms. Smith $88 million) properly asserted jurisdiction over Ms. Smith's counterclaim against Pierce Marshall.

In the present matter, the Court stated limited the domestic relations exception found in Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 and also limited the probate exception in Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490.

In Ankenbrandt, the Court had previously dealt with divorce, alimony and child custody decrees and clarified that only these remain outside federal jurisdictional bounds. Further, the Court recognized that while recognizing the "special proficiency developed by state tribunals...in handling issues that arise in the granting of [divorce, alimony, and child custody] decrees," federal courts were as equally equipped to deal with complaints alleging the commission of torts.

The Court here also clarified an earlier decision in Markham, which allowed federal courts to entertain suits in favor of claimants against a decedent's estate 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 custody of the state court. Here, the Court clarifies the "interference question" by stating that the language is "essentially a reiteration of the general principle, that, when one court is exercising in rem jurisdiction over a res, a second court will not assume in rem jurisdiction over the same res. This exception, however, does not bar federal courts from adjudicating matters outside those confines and otherwise within federal jurisdiction.

The Court states that Ms. Smith's claim does not involve the administration of an estate, the probate of a will or any other purely probate matter. Rather, the claim alleges the tort of interference with a gift or inheritance and in so doing, Ms. Smith seeks an in personam judgement against Pierce Marshall, not the probate or annulment of a will. The Court further states that state probate courts possess no "special proficiency" in handling such issues.

The Court also rejected the 9th Circuit's alternate reasoning that the Texas probate court's jurisdictional ruling bound the federal district court. The Court clarifies that although Texas law governs the substantive elements of the tortuous interference claim, it does not reserve to the probate court the exclusive right to adjudicate a transitory tort.

The Court states that the present issue is not the Texas probate court's jurisdiction, but rather the federal district court's jurisdiction to hear Ms. Smith's tortuous interference claim.

You can read the opinion at the Supreme Court web site: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1544.pdf

Ray