Court Opinion

ID: 9421665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:59:16.103659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:31.558870
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Black,
whom Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Brennan join,
dissenting.
I believe the courts of Florida had power to adjudicate the effectiveness of the appointment made in Florida by Mrs. Donner with respect to all those who were notified of the proceedings and given an opportunity to be heard without violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.1 If this is correct, it follows that *257the Delaware courts erred in refusing to give the prior Florida judgment full faith and credit. U. S. Const., Art. IV, § 1; 28 U. S. C. § 1738.
Mrs. Donner was domiciled in Florida from 1944 until her death in 1952. The controversial appointment was made there in 1949. It provided that certain persons were to receive a share of the property held by the Delaware “trustee” under the so-called trust agreement upon her death. Until she died Mrs. Donner received the entire income from this property, and at all times possessed absolute power to revoke or alter the appointment and to dispose of the property as she pleased. As a practical matter she also retained control over the management of the property, the “trustee” in Delaware being little more than a custodian.2 A number of the beneficiaries of the appointment, including those who were to receive more than 95% of the assets involved, were residents of Florida at the time the appointment was made as well as when the present suit was filed. The appointed property consisted of intangibles which had no real situs in any particular State although Mrs. Donner paid taxes on the property in Florida.
The same day the 1949 appointment was made Mrs. Donner executed a will, which after her death was duly probated in a Florida court. The will contained a residuary clause providing for the distribution of all of *258her property not previously bequeathed, including “any and all property, rights and interest over which I may have power of appointment which prior to my death has not been effectively exercised by me . . . Thus if the 1949 appointment was ineffective the property involved came back into Mrs. Donner’s estate to be distributed under the residuary clause of her will. As might be anticipated the present litigation arose when legatees brought an action in the Florida courts seeking a determination whether the appointment was valid. The beneficiaries of the appointment, some of whom live outside Florida, and the Delaware trustee were defendants. They had timely notice of the suit and an adequate opportunity to obtain counsel and appear.
In light of the foregoing circumstances it seems quite clear to me that there is nothing in the Due Process Clause which denies Florida the right to determine whether Mrs. Donner’s appointment was valid as against its statute of wills. This disposition, which was designed to take effect after her death, had very close and substantial connections with that State. Not only was the appointment made in Florida by a domiciliary of Florida, but the primary beneficiaries also lived in that State. In my view it could hardly be denied that Florida had sufficient interest so that a court with jurisdiction might properly apply Florida law, if it chose, to determine whether the appointment was effectual. Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 348 U. S. 66; Osborn v. Ozlin, 310 U. S. 53. True, the question whether the law of a State can be applied to a transaction is different from the question whether the courts of that State have jurisdiction to enter a judgment, but the two are often closely related and to a substantial degree depend upon similar considerations. It seems to me that where a transaction has as much relationship to a State as Mrs. Donner’s appointment had to Florida its courts ought to have *259power to adjudicate controversies arising out of that transaction, unless litigation there would impose such a heavy and disproportionate burden on a nonresident defendant that it would offend what this Court has referred to as “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457, 463; International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 316. So far as the nonresident defendants here are concerned I can see nothing which approaches that degree of unfairness. Florida, the home of the principal contenders for Mrs. Donner’s largess, was a reasonably convenient forum for all.3 Certainly there is nothing fundamentally unfair in subjecting the corporate trustee to the jurisdiction of the Florida courts. It chose to maintain business relations with Mrs. Donner in that State for eight years, regularly communicating with her with respect to the business of the trust including the very appointment in question.
Florida’s interest in the validity of Mrs. Donner’s appointment is made more emphatic by the fact that her will is being administered in that State. It has traditionally been the rule that the State where a person is domiciled at the time of his death is the proper place to determine the validity of his will, to construe its provisions and to marshal and distribute his personal property. Here Florida was seriously concerned with winding up Mrs. Donner’s estate and with finally determining what property was to be distributed under her will. In fact this suit was brought for that very purpose.
The Court’s decision that Florida did not have jurisdiction over the trustee (and inferentially the nonresident beneficiaries) stems from principles stated the better part *260of a century ago in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714. That landmark case was decided in 1878, at a time when business affairs were predominantly local in nature and travel between States was difficult, costly and sometimes even dangerous. There the Court laid down the broad principle that a State could not subject nonresidents to the jurisdiction of its courts unless they were served with process within its boundaries or voluntarily appeared, except to the extent they had property in the State. But as the years have passed the constantly increasing ease and rapidity of communication and the tremendous growth of interstate business activity have led to a steady and inevitable relaxation of the strict limits on state jurisdiction announced in that case. In the course of this evolution the old jurisdictional landmarks have been left far behind so that in many instances States may now properly exercise jurisdiction over nonresidents not amenable to service within their borders.4 Yet further relaxation seems certain. Of course we have not reached the point where state boundaries are without significance, and I do not mean to suggest such a view here. There is no need to do so. For we are dealing with litigation arising from a transaction that had an abundance of close and substantial connections with the State of Florida.
Perhaps the decision most nearly in point is Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306. In that case the Court held that a State could enter a personal judgment in favor of a trustee against nonresident beneficiaries of a trust even though they were not served with process in that State. So far as appeared, their only connection with the State was the fact that the trust was *261being administered there.5 In upholding the State’s jurisdiction the Court emphasized its great interest in trusts administered within its boundaries and governed by its laws. Id., at 313. Also implicit in the result was a desire to avoid the necessity for multiple litigation with its accompanying waste and possibility of inconsistent results. It seems to me that the same kind of considerations are present here supporting Florida’s jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants.
Even if it be assumed that the Court is right in its jurisdictional holding, I think its disposition of the two cases is unjustified. It reverses the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court on the ground that the trustee may be, but need not be, an indispensable party to the Florida litigation under Florida law. At the same time it affirms the subsequent Delaware judgment. Although in form the Florida case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Court’s opinion, the effect is that the Florida courts will be obliged to give full faith and credit to the Delaware judgment. This means the Florida courts will never have an opportunity to,determine whether the trustee is ah indispensable party. The Florida judgment is thus completely wiped out even as to those parties who make their homes in that State, and even though the Court acknowledges there is nothing in the Constitution which precludes Florida from entering a binding judgment for or against them. It may be argued that the Delaware judgment is the first to become final and therefore is entitled to prevail. But it only comes first because the Court makes it so. In my judgment the proper thing to do would be to hold the Delaware case until the Florida courts had an opportunity to *262decide whether the trustee is an indispensable party. Under the circumstances of this case I think it is quite probable that they would say he is not. See Trueman Fertilizer Co. v. Allison, 81 So. 2d 734. I can see no reason why this Court should deprive Florida plaintiffs of their judgment against Florida defendants on the basis of speculation about Florida law which might well turn out to be unwarranted.

 In my judgment it is a mistake to decide this case on the assumption that the Florida courts invalidated the trust established in 1935 by Mrs. Donner while she was living in Pennsylvania. It seems quite clear to me that those courts had no such purpose. As I understand it, all they held was that an appointment made in Florida providing for the disposition of part of the trust property after Mrs. Donner’s *257death was (1) testamentary since she retained complete control over the appointed property until she died, and (2) ineffective because not executed in accordance with the Florida statute of wills.

 Among other things Mrs. Donner reserved the right to appoint “advisers” serving at her sufferance who controlled all purchases, sales and investments by the “trustee.” Evidence before the Delaware courts indicated that these advisers, not the Delaware “trustee,” actually made all decisions with respect to transactions affecting the “trust” property and that the “trustee” mechanically acted as they directed.

 The suggestion is made that Delaware was a more suitable forum, but the plain fact is that none of the beneficiaries or legatees has ever resided in that State.

 See, e. g., McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U. S. 220; Travelers Health Assn. v. Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Comm’n, 339 U. S. 643; International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310; Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457; Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. Goodman, 294 U. S. 623; Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352.

 There was no basis for in rem jurisdiction since the litigation concerned the personal liability of the trustee and did not involve the trust property.