Opinion ID: 3013832
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: inapplicable here because

Text: this action relates to the The parties acknowledge, as they execution of an inter vivos must, the foregoing threshold principles. trust, not to a will. We From that point of departure, however, reject such a per se rule. they proceed down different analytical The inter vivos trust is paths. clearly a will substitute. Appellants contend that the probate However, the fact that this exception is categorically inapplicable to case does involve a will this case. They argue that the probate substitute does not exception by its terms applies only to a automatically render the will, and not to a trust—even if, as here, probate exception 10 applicable. se apply to preempt this action. Of course, we have already observed that the state 856 F.2d at 974 n.2. can shrink the probate exception by The probate exception protects the assigning probate related claims to a state state’s interest in managing all challenges court of general jurisdiction. But the addressing an estate res located in that reverse does not follow. A state cannot state or with which the state has some expand the probate exception—and defeat meaningful connection. That interest is no otherwise proper federal jurisdiction over less compelling if the estate res is a matter—simply by vesting exclusive distributed by trust rather than by a will. authority over otherwise in personam We agree with the Court of Appeals for actions in the probate court. See Canalthe Seventh Circuit in holding that causes Louisiana, 215 U.S. at 43-44; Payne v. of action involving trusts are treated under Hook, 74 U.S. (7 Wal.) 415, 429-30 the probate exception in the same way as (1869); see also 17 Wright, Miller & actions involving wills. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure 3d § 4211, at 475 (1988). That is to say, if a Appellees take the opposite claim is otherwise outside the scope of the categorical position, and contend that the probate exception, a federal court is not probate exception applies categorically to divested of jurisdiction simply because the all claims here. They argue that, because state places that sort of claim in state the Pennsylvania legislature has probate court. See Marshall v. Lauriault, transferred to the Orphans’ Court the 372 F.3d 175, 181 (3d Cir. 2004). power to administer and oversee actions seeking to reform trusts, see 20 Pa. C.S.A. Accordingly, we reject the § 711(3),12 the probate exception must per categorical argument of each party. Instead, we must examine the substance of each of the claims to determine whether it 12 In relevant part, 20 Pa. C.S.A. § falls within the probate exception. 711 states: