Document: 547 U.S. 293 (2006) MARSHALL v. No. 04-1544. Supreme Court of United States. Argued February 28, 2006. Decided May 1, *298 Kent L. Richland argued the cause for petitioner. With him on briefs were Dana Gardner Adelstein, Alan Diamond, Edward Xanders, and Philip W. Boesch, Jr. Deanne E. Maynard States as amicus curiae urging reversal. her brief Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney O'Connor, Deputy Hungar, Morrison, Jonathan S. Cohen, Joan I. Oppenheimer. G. Eric Brunstad, Jr., respondent. Rheba Rutkowski, Robert A. Brundage, Susan Kim, William C. Heuer, Thomas Goldstein, Amy Howe, Kevin K. Russell, Jones.[*] JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered opinion Court. In Cohens Virginia, Chief Justice Marshall famously cautioned: "It is most true that this will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but equally true, must should. . We have no more right to decline exercise which given, than *299 usurp given." 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821). Among longstanding limitations federal otherwise properly exercised are so-called "domestic relations" "probate" exceptions. Neither compelled by text Constitution or statute. Both judicially created doctrines stemming in large measure from misty understandings English legal history. See, e. g., Atwood, Domestic Relations Cases Federal Court: Toward a Principled Exercise Jurisdiction, 35 Hastings J. 571, 584-588 (1984); Spindel Spindel, 283 F. Supp. 797, 802 (EDNY 1968) (collecting cases commentary revealing vulnerability historical explanation domestic relations exception); Winkler, The Probate Jurisdiction Courts, 14 77, 125-126, n. 256 (1997) (describing probate exception "an mythography"). years following Marshall's 1821 pronouncement, courts sometimes lost sight his admonition rendered decisions expansively interpreting two Ankenbrandt Richards, 504 689 (1992), reined exception." Earlier, Markham Allen, 326 490 (1946), endeavored similarly curtail "probate Nevertheless, Ninth Circuit instant case read broadly exclude courts' adjudicatory authority "not only direct challenges trust, also questions would ordinarily be decided court determining validity decedent's estate planning instrument." 392 F.3d 1118, 1133 (2004). Appeals further held State's vesting exclusive over matters special strips entertain any related matter," including claims respecting "tax liability, debt, gift, [or] tort." Id., at 1136. hold had warrant Congress, *300 Court, its sweeping extension exception. I Petitioner, Vickie Lynn (Vickie), known Anna Nicole Smith, surviving widow Howard II (J. Howard). met October 1991. After courtship lasting years, they married June 27, 1994. died August 4, 1995. Although he lavished gifts significant sums money during their marriage, did include anything will. According Vickie, intended provide financial security through gift form "catchall" trust. Respondent, Pierce (Pierce), one Howard's sons, was ultimate beneficiary plan, consisted living trust "pourover" Under terms will, all assets already included transferred upon death. Competing regarding fortune ignited proceedings both state courts. January 1996, while subject ongoing Harris County, Texas, filed bankruptcy under Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Code, § 1101 et seq., Central District California. See 275 B.R. 5, 8 (CD Cal. 2002). proof claim proceeding, id., 9; see 501, alleging defamed when, shortly after death, lawyers representing told members press engaged forgery, fraud, overreaching gain control father's assets, B.R., 9. sought declaration *301 debt asserted dischargeable bankruptcy. Ibid.[1] answered, asserting truth defense. She counterclaims, among them tortiously interfered with she expected. Ibid.; App. 23-25. alleged prevented transfer by, other things: effectively imprisoning against wishes; surrounding hired guards purpose preventing personal contact between Vickie; making misrepresentations Howard; transferring property expressed wishes. 24. Vickie's tortious interference counterclaim turned objection Pierce's into an adversary proceeding. 39; Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 3007. granted summary judgment favor and, trial merits, entered counterclaim. 253 550, 558-559 (2000). qualified "core proceedings" 28 157, meant enter final disposing those claims. 257 35, 39-40 awarded compensatory damages $449 millionless whatever recovered action Texasas well $25 million punitive damages. 40. post-trial motion dismiss lack subject-matter jurisdiction, could tried Texas proceedings. 36. *302 "the `probate exception' argument waived" because timely raised. 39. Relying Court's decision Markham, observed has "adjudicate rights property, so long does undertake interfere court's possession property." 38 (citing U. S., 494). Meanwhile, valid. F.3d, 1124-1125. turn, challenged Pierce, ibid., voluntarily dismissed once judgment, 1128. Following jury trial, declared 1129. Back forum, district-court review judgment. While rejecting determination forfeited based exception, reach claim. 264 609, 619-625 2001). "did assert generally [the] estate's assets," observed, 621, "[t]hus, bar such `interfere' proceedings," ibid. (quoting "interfere" proceedings, concluded, because: (1) success necessitate invalid, 621; (2) law, do kind counterclaim, 622-625. qualify proceedin[g] arising title 11, 11." 157(b)(1); *303 B. R., 625-632. A may plenary power proceedings." 157(b)-(c).[2] noncore matters, judgment; issue proposed findings fact conclusions reviewed de novo district court. 157(c)(1). Accordingly, treated "proposed[,] rather final," undertook "comprehensive, complete, independent of" determinations. 633. *304 Adopting supplementing findings, determined expectancy. Specifically, found directed prepare inter vivos consisting half appreciation date marriage. 25-30, 51-53. It conspired suppress destroy instrument strip backdating, altering, falsifying documents, arranging surveillance presenting documents false pretenses. 36-50, 57-58; 554-556, 559-560. Based these some $44.3 53-57. addition, finding "overwhelming" evidence "willfulness, maliciousness, fraud," equal amount 57-58. reversed. appeals recognized "does involve administration estate, purely matter." 1133. bars case. Circuit's view, falls within raises "questions instrument," whether "fraud, undue influence[, or] testator's intent." Ibid. view state-court delineation jurisdiction. regard, stated: "Where relegated *305 state's general hear then matters." Noting "[t]he [P]robate [C]ourt ruled Vickie[`s] claims," "ruling binding [D]istrict [C]ourt." Durfee Duke, 375 106, 115-116 (1963)). certiorari, 545 1165 (2005), resolve apparent confusion concerning scope Satisfied fall ambit narrow our decisions, we reverse addressed derivation limits exception" Carol Ankenbrandt, citizen Missouri, brought suit behalf daughters, naming defendants father (Ankenbrandt's former husband) female companion, citizens Louisiana. 691. Ankenbrandt's complaint defendants' sexual physical abuse children. predicated diversity citizenship. 1332). holding fell `domestic relations' jurisdiction." U.S., 692. agreed affirmed. reversed Appeals' 706-707. Holding improperly refrained exercising tort claim, 704, traced current *306 Barber Barber, 21 How. 582 (1859). 693-695. upheld federal-court authority, case, enforce alimony award decreed dicta, however, announcedwithout citation discussion suits divorce allowance alimony. How., 584-589; Finding Article III impediment cases, 695-697, anchored Congress' original provision 698-701. Beginning beginning, recalled: "The Judiciary Act 1789 provided `the circuit shall cognizance, concurrent several States, civil nature common law equity, where matter dispute exceeds, costs, sum value five hundred dollars, alien party, State brought, another State.'" 698 Sept. 24, 1789, 1 Stat. 78; emphasis added Ankenbrandt). defining phrase, "all equity," stressed, remained successive statutory provisions until 1948, when Congress adopted economical actions." 698; 1948 Judicial Code Act, 62 930, 1332. majority, acknowledged expressly tie announcement 698. But dissenters made connection. They stated chancery lacked *307 decrees. Because bounded England," 605 (opinion Daniel, J.), reasoned, decree divorces alimony, Such relief, words, statute's grant equity." concluded "it inferred fairly jurisdictional limitation [Barber] rested th[e] basis" indicated 699. "content" "to rest conclusion exists construction accuracy justifications [the exception] seemingly based." 700. "[R]ather," relied "Congress' acceptance prior statute limited `suits equity.'" 78). intend terminate "replace[d] law/equity distinction phrase `all actions.'" Absent contrary indications, presumed leave undisturbed nearly century-long interpretation" contain certain nevertheless emphasized covers "a range issues." 701. itself, reminded, "sanctioned enforcement been obtained competent 702. lower applied *308 "well beyond circumscribed situations posed progeny," 701, clarified "divorce, child custody decrees" remain outside bounds, 703, 704. recognizing "special proficiency developed tribunals handling issues arise granting [divorce, custody] decrees," viewed equipped deal complaints commission torts, premised 1334, Decisions exception," kin proper 494; Sutton English, 246 199 (1918); Waterman Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co., 215 33 (1909). Like linked language contained 1789. recent pathmarking pronouncement equity conferred ., Chancery extend 494. Nicolas, Fighting Mafia: Dissection Exception 74 Rev. 1479 (2001). As "[w]e occasion join debate" 699, far bounds described Markham. therefore need consider there *309 uncodified 1334.[3] plaintiff Alien Property Custodian [4] commenced executor resident heirs determine Custodian's estate. 491-492. 24(1) now 1345, provides officer At time commenced, undergoing *310 issued order himself right, title, interest German legatees. He gained Custodian, substituting legatees, entitled entire net specified real passing Reversing Circuit, ordered want invoked. first administer established series `in creditors, legatees heirs' claimants `to establish claims' assume court." 494 Waterman, 43). Next, distinctly scope: "[W]hile disturb affect court, adjudicate save extent bound recognize adjudicated above-quoted passages model clear statement. *311 heirs, "so (emphasis added). Lower puzzled meaning words "interfere block Mangieri Mangieri, 226 2-3 (CA1 2000) (breach fiduciary duty executor); Golden ex rel. Golden, 382 348, 360-362 (CA3 2004) (same); Lepard NBD Bank, Div. One, 384 232, 234-237 (CA6 trustee); Storm Storm, 328 941, 943-945 (CA7 2003) (probate plaintiff's inheritance persuading grantor amend irrevocable trust); Rienhardt Kelly, 164 1296, 1300-1301 (CA10 1999) exerted influence testator thereby expected inheritance). Markham's enigmatic sync second passage, proscribe "disturb[ing] affect[ing] True, reading renders first-quoted passage part redundant, redundancy context, doubt, preferable incoherence. short, comprehend "interference" essentially reiteration principle that, rem res, same res. Penn Casualty Co. Pennsylvania Schnader, 294 189, 195-196 (1935); 45-46. Thus, reserves annulment estate; *312 precludes endeavoring dispose adjudicating confines correctly "involve Provoked like Ankenbrandt's, alleges widely tort. King Acker, 725 S.W.2d 750, 754 (Tex. 1987); 4 Restatement (Second) Torts 774B (1977) ("One who duress means intentionally prevents receiving third person [s]he received liability loss gift."). seeks personam Cf. Sutton, 208 (suit annul "supplemental will" cognizable court). Nor seek res Furthermore, "sound policy considerations" militate extending cover hand. 703. Trial courts, state, often address conduct alleges. possess [such] B advanced alternate basis "ruled *313 Marshall," reject determination. state-law modeled formulation. King, 2d, 754; Brandes Rice Trust, Inc., 966 144, 146-147 1998).[5] clear, Erie R. Tompkins, 304 64 (1938), governs substantive elements reserve transitory *314 cannot create sue having Tennessee Coal, Iron George, 233 354, 360 (1914). "by creation defeated extraterritorial operation [state] even though action." Directly point, "having existed beginning government, [can]not impaired subsequent legislation creating probate." McClellan Carland, 217 268, 281 (1910) (upholding decedent, intestate, 33)). Our 106 (1963), 1136, contrary. stands proposition own qualifies full faith credit, fully litigated 111, 115. here, system, render exclusively genre. Pierce. IV proceeding," March 7, 2002. 5-8. became 2002, month earlier. Pet. *315 Cert. 41. considered question "core"; nor arguments preclusion. 1137. These open consideration remand. * For reasons stated, reversed, remanded consistent opinion. ordered. STEVENS, concurring decedents' estates typically governed rules conducted Occasionally, disputes interested parties arise, either proceeding itself elsewhere, controversies decide. Reed Reed, 71 (1971). cogently explained why write separately explain believe ousts possesses. familiar aphorism hard make bad easy well. unnecessary logical underpinnings because, supposed obiter dictadicta describes redundant incoherent, ante, 311generated *316 abdication obligation articulated, (1821); 298-299. today rightly abandons much go further. content adopt approach followed accept foundation bald assertion High Chancery's "extend matters" 308. premise. Not theory espoused sporadically tentatively cited justification exception,[1] comprehensive article persuasively demonstrated mythography."[2] apparently source reformulated "reserves estate." Ante, 311. undoubtedly narrower ill-considered description carve-out, *317 sweeps too broadly. actions involving wills estates. Gaines Fuentes, 92 10 (1876), example, defendant permitted remove doing, explained: "[W]henever controversy arises admitting probate, reason parties." 22. Likewise, Payne Hook, 7 Wall. 425 (1869), settled chancery, incident trusts, relation account, compel executors administrators account distribute hands." 431. (In later appointed Special Master This Master's determinations rejected others. Hook Payne, 252, 255 (1872).) To sure, support careful examination reveals least stem sui generis applicable rules. Ellis Davis, 109 485, 497 (1883) ("Jurisdiction wills, such, neither excepted out judicial States"). Some rules, rule attach absent *318 partes controversy, plainly still relevant today. 33, 44-45 (1909); 46 (reaffirming gremio legis principle). Others, bill lie adequate remedy less straightforward application wake 20th-century developments. Case Broderick's Will, 503, 510-512 (1875); Ellis, 503 (denying relief plain, complete law"); supra 2, 112-113. Whatever continuing viability individual together task cabining require helping hand Rather preserving vitality "exception" retained result creature decent burial grave adjacent resting place Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Lance Dennis, 546 459, 468 (Stevens, J., dissenting). NOTES [*] Richard Lieb amici reversal Aaron al. Briefs affirmance Greg Abbott, Barry McBee, First General, D. Burbach, Litigation, Ted Cruz, Rance Craft, Attorneys respective follows: Troy Alabama, John Suthers Colorado, Charles Foti, Louisiana, Joseph Curran, Maryland, Jim Hood Mississippi, Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon Hardy Myers Oregon; National College Judges James Wade; Philanthropy Roundtable Ronald Cass; Washington Legal Foundation Sidney P. Levinson, Daniel Popeo, Paul Kamenar; Bonnie Snavely Carter Phillips Jay T. Jorgensen; Ernest Young Craig Goldblatt. Whitman Heirs, Inc. [1] debts bankruptcy, 523(a), "willful malicious injury debtor," 523(a)(6). [2] "Core include, to "(A) "(B) disallowance exemptions estimation interests purposes confirming plan chapter 12, 13 liquidation contingent unliquidated wrongful death distribution 11; "(C) counterclaims persons filing "(D) orders respect obtaining credit; "(E) turn "(F) determine, avoid, recover preferences; "(G) motions terminate, annul, modify automatic stay; "(H) fraudulent conveyances; "(I) dischargeability particular debts; "(J) objections discharges; "(K) validity, extent, priority liens; "(L) confirmations plans; "(M) approving use lease cash collateral; "(N) sale resulting "(O) affecting adjustment debtor-creditor holder relationship, except claims; "(P) recognition foreign 15 157(b)(2) (2000 ed. V). [3] note broad 1334(b) mandatory abstention Section 1334(c)(2) provides: "Upon party action, section, abstain hearing can adjudicated, forum appropriate That is, qualified: "Non-core section 157(b)(2)(B) 1334(c)(2)." 157(b)(4). untimely, 39 2000), might required motion. Trading Enemy 40 415, 50 App., authorizes President appoint official "alien custodian," responsible "receiv[ing,] hold[ing], administer[ing], account[ing] for" due belonging enemy, ally enemy ." originally enacted World War permit, safeguards restrictions, kinds business carried on" warring nations, "provid[e] care enemies allies country pending war." Cabell, 404, 414, (1945) (Burton, concurring) Rep. 113, 65th Cong., 1st Sess., (1917)). [5] appellate "barred" applying ordinary principles Thompson Deloitte Touche, 902 13, 16 1995) (final expectancy "necessarily decedent] signed testamentary capacity, reflected intent, coercion influence, valid"); Neill Yett, 746 32, 35-36 1988) (complaint fraud expectancy, admitted barred failed claim). question. maintains Thompson, Neill, contention preclusion Brief Respondent 36-38. argues Petitioner 42, 30 (urging apply proceedings; presented before joined contest, obliged present (3) preceded (4) important evidence). Tex. Civ. 97 (2003); Ingersoll-Rand Valero Energy Corp., 997 203, 206-207 1999). remains infra, 315. Notably, Bradley, strong proponent sitting England belonged ecclesiastical (1875), 10, 24-25 (1876) (dissenting opinion), urged "even savoring [e]cclesiastical process, formed definite parties," heard Rosenbaum Bauer, 120 450, 460-461 (1887) opinion) Gaines, 17, Hess Reynolds, 113 73 (1885)). 126 (1997); 299 (acknowledging Winkler's analysis). Winkler observes, citing Dickens' Bleak House (1853), "suggestion `administer estate' preposterous." 125, 256.

Category: 8