Hanson v. Denckla PDF

Preview

Summary

Hanson Case Notes...

Description

Personal Jurisdiction: Application of International Shoe Minimum Contacts Test _________________________________________________________ Hanson v. Denckla _________________________________________________________ 57 U.S. 235 (1958)

“Trust Fund Baby War” | p. 87 - 90 Facts: Ms. Donner set up a trust in DE and then moved to FL. Upon her death, her daughters probated her will in FL, and attempted to split the trust benefits. Procedural History: Daughters and trust fund administer quarrel over who gets the money and where personal jurisdiction arises. If in FL then 3 daughters split, if in DE then only 2 split. Appeal to Supreme Court. Issue: Is a defendant ONLY subject to personal jurisdiction if they purposefully avail themselves of the benefits and privileges of the forum state? Rule of Law: Unilateral Activity is not Minimum Contacts Holding: Yes, do not account for Unilateral Activity of person not defendant when determining personal jurisdiction. Reasoning: There were no “acts” by the person selected to administer the trust, the trustee, to tie them to FL. Ms. Donner created the trust in DE, lived in PA, and then moved to FL. The trustee remained in DE and never solicited any work in FL. According to the Minimum Contacts standard:  One must Purposefully Avail themselves to the forum state  Characterizes the Contacts as “bits of trust administration” and “remitted payment”  Unilateral Activity of a non-defendant does not establish personal jurisdiction. Concept: Unilateral Activity – the activity of a person who does not purposely avail them to the forum state. The trustee did not seek out FL and remained in DE. Rule §§: International Shoe

_________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________

Personal Jurisdiction: Application of International Shoe Minimum Contacts Test 1. This case is the other bookend from McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. as both have very minimal contacts within the state but came with very different decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court. Domiciled seems to not have matter when a decision about the trust was created long before the deceased moved to Florida. Only the minimum contacts when the trust was created. While in McGee the client was promised service from International Life Insurance and created a greater standard of minimum contacts. 2. How do these McGee v. International Insurance Co. and Hanson v. Denckla restrict the idea of in rem jurisdiction that was created in Pennoyer v. Nef? 



Neither case seems to pass the minimum contact standard set up in International Shoe Co. v. Washington yet one was given jurisdiction and the other not. See above for opinion on the two cases as to what makes them different. In rem jurisdiction is based on the idea of the state court, forum, having power over one’s property. It does not seem that either state California or Florida could enforce the decision that they granted. McGee literally had to go to Texas to get it approved but they declined, why it ended up in in the Supreme Court. International Shoe Co. has allowed for almost the complete ignoring of in rem jurisdiction for a corporation. Not so much for a person...