Court Opinion

ID: 9552941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:19:31.651112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:24.260637
License: Public Domain

ROONEY, Justice,
concurring.
In addition to the reason for reversal set forth in the opinion of Justice Thomas, I believe a reversal is proper because the Indiana court could not act with reference to Wyoming real property in the manner in which it attempted to do so. In other words, I do not believe that an interest in real property situated in Wyoming can be properly transferred by a third party not having that interest and not having any other property interest therein — even when such transfer is made upon an order of an Indiana federal court.
I do not contest the existence of in per-sonam jurisdiction by the Indiana court over Horseshoe Creek Limited. Horseshoe Creek Limited made an appearance in a matter pending before that court and, thus, submitted to in personam jurisdiction by it. Since the Indiana court had in personam jurisdiction, there is no argument but that it could order Horseshoe Creek Limited to act with reference to any proper interest held by Horseshoe Creek Limited in Wyoming real property. Kane v. Kane, Wyo., 577 P.2d 172 (1978); Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 3, 54 L.Ed. 65 (1909).
“But, however, plausibly the contrary view may be sustained, we think that the doctrine that the court, not having jurisdiction of the res, cannot affect it by its decree, nor by a deed made by a master in accordance with the decree, is firmly established. The embarrassment which sometimes results from it has been obviated by legislation in many states. In some states the decree is made to operate per se as a source of title. This operation is given a decree in Nebraska. In other states, power is given to certain officers to carry the decree into effect. Such power is given in Washington to commissioners appointed by the court. It was in pursuance of this power that the deed in the suit at bar was executed. But this legislation does not affect the doctrine which we have expressed, which rests, as we have said, on the well-recognized principle that, when the subject-matter of a suit in a court of equity is within another state or country, but the parties within the jurisdiction of the court, the suit may be maintained and remedies granted which may directly affect and operate upon the person of the defendant and not upon the subject-matter, although the subject-matter is referred to in the decree, and the defendant is ordered to do or refrain from certain acts toward it, and it is thus ultimately but indirectly affected by the relief granted. In such case, the decree is not of itself legal title, nor does it transfer the legal title. It must be executed by the party, and obedience is compelled by proceedings in the nature of contempt, attachment or sequestration. On the other hand, where the suit is strictly local, the subject-matter is specific property, and the relief, when granted, is such that it must act directly upon the subject-matter, and not upon the person of the defendant, the jurisdiction must be exercised in the state where the subject-matter is situated. [Citation.]
“This doctrine is entirely consistent with the provision of the Constitution of the United States, which requires a judgment in any state to be given full faith and credit in the courts of every other state. This provision does not extend the jurisdiction of the courts of one state to property situated in another, but only makes the judgment rendered conclusive on the *1145merits of the claim or subject-matter of the suit. ‘It does not carry with it into another state the efficacy of a judgment upon property or persons, to be enforced by execution. To give it the force of a judgment in another state it must be made a judgment there; and can only be executed in the latter as its laws may permit.’ M’Elmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312, 10 L.Ed. 177.” (Emphasis added.) Fall v. Eastin, supra at 30 S.Ct. 7-8.
If a document executed by Horseshoe Creek Limited transferring a proper interest in Wyoming real property were recorded in the office of the appropriate Wyoming County Clerk and Registrar of Deeds, a chain of title with reference thereto could be followed into and out of Horseshoe Creek Limited through an examination of records in Wyoming. However, a document executed by a third party would not reflect such chain of title through reference to records in Wyoming. An out-of-state court order authorizing such transfer — even if a certified copy thereof were made of record in Wyoming — would necessitate a review by an abstractor or title examiner of the supporting documents filed in the matter in the foreign court. A requirement to do so would be improper and would be violative of the “principles of interstate federalism embodied in the Constitution.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 293, 100 S.Ct. 559, 565, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980).
Rule 70, F.R.C.P. provides:
“If a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land or to deliver deeds or other documents or to perform any other specific act and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court and the act when so done has like effect as if done by the party. On application of the party entitled to performance, the clerk shall issue a writ of attachment or sequestration against the property of the disobedient party to compel obedience to the judgment. The court may also in proper cases adjudge the party in contempt. If real or personal property is within the district, the court in lieu of directing a conveyance thereof may enter a judgment divesting the title of any party and vesting it in others and such judgment has the effect of a conveyance executed in due form of law. When any order or judgment is for the delivery of possession, the party in whose favor it is entered is entitled to a writ of execution or assistance upon application to the clerk.” (Emphasis added.)
The rule concerns property “within the district” and prohibits direct action by the court on property in another district. The court cannot do indirectly that which it cannot do directly. The rule does not establish a basis for jurisdiction. Georgia Central Credit Union v. Martin G.M.C. Trucks, Inc., 622 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1980).
“A Court may indirectly act on foreign real estate through its authority over the parties before it, but neither the Court’s decree nor any conveyance under it, except by the person in whom the title is actually vested, can operate beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. * * * ” Mohr v. Allen, 407 F.Supp. 483, 489, n. 3 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).
See Stewart Oil Company v. Sohio Petroleum Company, 185 F.Supp. 765 (E.D.Ill.1960).
Accordingly, under Rule 70 and otherwise, the attempted transfer of a “security interest” in Wyoming real property by a third party pursuant to the order of the Indiana federal court was ineffective.
The suggestion made in connection with this case that the distinction between jurisdiction in rem and jurisdiction in personam was “obliterated” requires a response. It is true that the method or standard by which the existence of in personam jurisdiction and in rem jurisdiction was changed from that set forth in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1878), by virtue of the decisions in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, 161 A.L.R. 1057 (1945), and *1146Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977), but the distinction between in rem jurisdiction and in per-sonam jurisdiction is so ingrained into our judicial process that its continued existence is necessary for equitable and rational consideration in several areas of the law, e.g. in personam jurisdiction can be waived or consented to, but subject matter jurisdiction may not, Church v. Quiner, 31 Wyo. 222, 224 P. 1073 (1924); White v. Board of Land Commissioners, Wyo., 595 P.2d 76 (1979); Rule 12(h)(1), W.R.C.P. versus Rule 12(h)(3), W.R.C.P.1 The Wyoming long-arm statute, § 5-1-107, W.S.1977 has reference only to in personam jurisdiction.2
The Court in Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, recognized that the standards set forth therein for determining jurisdiction in both in rem and in personam situations could not be applied in cases such as those in which jurisdiction is based on status, e.g. domestic relations, and those in which it is based on “necessity”; e.g. property in a state and no other forum available. See footnotes 30 and 37, Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, pages 2582 and 2583 in 97 S.Ct. Justice Powell filed a concurring opinion in Shaffer only to express one reservation:
“I would explicitly reserve judgment, however, on whether the ownership of some forms of property whose situs is indisputably and permanently located within a State may, without more, provide the contacts necessary to subject a defendant to jurisdiction within the State to the extent of the value of the property. In the case of real property, in particular, preservation of the common-law concept of quasi in rem jurisdiction arguably would avoid the uncertainty of the general International Shoe standard without significant cost to ‘ “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’ * * *” 97 S.Ct. at 2586.
Mr. Justice Stevens expressed a similar reservation:
“How the Court’s opinion may be applied in other contexts is not entirely clear to me. I agree with Mr. Justice POWELL that it should not be read to invalidate quasi in rem jurisdiction where real estate is involved. I would also not read it as invalidating other long-acepted methods of acquiring jurisdiction over persons with adequate notice of both the particular controversy and the fact that their local activities might subject them to suit. My uncertainty as to the reach of the opinion, and my fear that it purports to decide a great deal more than is necessary to dispose of this case, persuade me merely to concur in the judgment.” 97 S.Ct. at 2587-2588.
In Shaffer, the Court extended the standards for determining the existence of in personam jurisdiction as set forth in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, supra, to a determination of the existence of in rem jurisdiction. But, in doing so, it recognized the existence of the two types of jurisdictions:
“ * * * We think that the time is ripe to consider whether the standard of fairness and substantial justice set forth in Inter*1147national Shoe should be held to govern actions in rem as well as in personam.” (Emphasis not added.) 97 S.Ct. at 2581. “It appears, therefore, that jurisdiction over many types of actions which now are or might be brought in rem would not be affected by a holding that any assertion of state-court jurisdiction must satisfy the International Shoe standard. * * * ” (Emphasis added.) 97 S.Ct. at 2582.
“We therefore conclude that all assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny.” (Footnotes omitted and emphasis added.) 97 S.Ct. at 2584.
Finally, it is to be noted that the thrust of the recent opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States has been to restrict the extent of the jurisdiction of the state courts over non-resident persons and things, rather than to enlarge it.
In 1878, the standards for jurisdiction of a state court over a non-resident, non-consenting defendant were established in Pen-noyer v. Neff, supra, as follows: In person-am jurisdiction exists only if the defendant was served with process while present in the state. In rem jurisdiction exists only if, at the commencement of the action, the court had control of property in the state owned by the defendant. In 1945, the standard relative to in personam jurisdiction was changed by International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, supra, to a “minimum contacts” standard. The Court there said at page 158 of 66 S.Ct.:
“ * * * due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ [Citations.]”
The old standard was supplemented but not abolished. It still applied if the defendant be “present within the territory of the forum” and to in rem jurisdiction.
As already noted, Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, extended the “minimum contacts” standard to in rem jurisdiction. But in doing so, the fact that the standard of “minimum contacts” and not “minimal contacts” was emphasized. A shareholder of a Delaware chartered corporation had brought a derivative action in Delaware against many of the corporation’s officers and directors, none of whom had any contacts within Delaware. Delaware law provided that the situs of shares in a Delaware corporation was in Delaware regardless of where the certificates were located. Jurisdiction was asserted by sequestering the stock of the defendants. The Court did not accept the Pennoyer v. Neff, supra, standard, which would have afforded in rem jurisdiction, but held that although the court had control of the property in the state at the commencement of the action, the defendant did not have the “minimum contacts” with the state sufficient for jurisdiction.
The restriction on state jurisdiction over non-resident persons and things, even operating under long-arm statutes, is further evidenced by the Court’s holdings in Kulko v. Superior Court of California in and for City and County of San Francisco, 436 U.S. 84, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra; and Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320, 100 S.Ct. 571, 62 L.Ed.2d 516 (1980).
In Kulko v. Superior Court of California, Etc., supra, the Court did not find the “minimum contacts” necessary for jurisdiction. It said at page 1696 of 98 S.Ct.:
“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment operates as a limitation on the jurisdiction of state courts to enter judgments affecting rights or interests of nonresident defendants. See Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 198-200, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2577, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977). It has long been the rule that a valid judgment imposing a personal obligation or duty in favor of the plaintiff may be entered only by a court having jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732-733, 24 L.Ed. 565, 572 (1878); International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S., at 316, *114866 S.Ct., at 158. The existence of personal jurisdiction, in turn, depends upon the presence of reasonable notice to the defendant that an action has been brought. Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313-314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 656-657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), and a sufficient connection between the defendant and the forum State to make it fair to require defense of the action in the forum. Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463-464, 61 S.Ct. 339, 342-343, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940).* * *
“ * * * While the interests of the forum State and of the plaintiff in proceeding with the cause in the plaintiff’s forum of choice are, of course, to be considered, see McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 201, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957), an essential criterion in all cases is whether the ‘quality and nature’ of the defendant’s activity is such that it is ‘reasonable’ and ‘fair’ to require him to conduct his defense in that State. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, 326 U.S., at 316-317, 319, 66 S.Ct., at 158, 159. Accord, Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, 433 U.S., at 207-212, 97 S.Ct., at 2581-2584; Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 445, 72 S.Ct. 413, 418, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952).” (Emphasis added.)
In World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra, the Court said at page 565 of 100 S.Ct.:
“Nevertheless, we have never accepted the proposition that state lines are irrelevant for jurisdictional purposes, nor could we and remain faithful to the principles of interstate federalism embodied in the Constitution. * * * But the Framers also intended that the States retain many essential attributes of sovereignty, including, in particular, the sovereign power to try causes in their courts. The sovereignty of each State, in turn, implied a limitation on the sovereignty of all of its sister States — a limitation express or implicit in both the original scheme of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment.
******
“Thus, the Due Process Clause ‘does not contemplate that a state may make binding a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations.’ International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra [326 U.S.], at 319, 66 S.Ct., at 159. Even if the defendant would suffer minimal or no inconvenience from being forced to litigate before the tribunals of another State; even if the forum State has a strong interest in applying its law to the controversy; even if the forum State is the most convenient location for litigation, the Due Process Clause, acting as an instrument of interstate federalism, may sometimes act to divest the State of its power to render a valid judgment. Hanson v. Denckla, supra, 357 U.S. [235], at 251, 254, 78 S.Ct. [1228], at 1238, 1240 [2 L.Ed.2d 1283],
⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ‡ ⅜ ⅝:
“This is not to say, of course, that foreseeability is wholly irrelevant. But the foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis is not the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum State. Rather, it is that the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. * * *»
Rush v. Savchuk, supra, involved an in rem case in which jurisdiction was premised upon the fact that defendant’s insurer did business in, and was regulated by, the state of plaintiff’s residence. The attachment of defendant’s insurance policy in plaintiff’s state of residence was held by the state court (Minnesota) to be intimately related to the litigation and a strong state interest was found in “facilitating recoveries for resident plaintiffs.” Savchuk v. Rush, 311 Minn. 480, 272 N.W.2d 888, 891 (1978). The United States Supreme Court reversed, emphasizing defendant’s activities in deciding the question of jurisdiction. It said:
“ * * * it cannot be said that the defendant engaged in any purposeful activity related to the forum that would make the exercise of jurisdiction fair, just, or rea*1149sonable * * (Emphasis not added.) 100 S.Ct., at 573.
In these cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States subsequent to the decision in Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, constant references were made to in person-am jurisdiction and to in rem jurisdiction. The standard by which their existence is determined may now be the same, but the distinction between them is yet useful and has not been “obliterated.”
The foregoing very brief summary of the evolution of state-court jurisdiction vis a vis due process is for the purpose of illustrating the move to restrict such jurisdiction over non-resident defendants and out of state property. The pivotal point here made, however, is that although in personam jurisdiction existed in the Indiana court over Horseshoe Creek Limited in connection with this matter, in rem jurisdiction did not exist over the Wyoming real property, and the Indiana court could act indirectly on the Wyoming real property only by exercising its in personam jurisdiction over Horseshoe Creek Limited — not by ordering a third party to make a conveyance of an interest in it.

. Rule 12(h)(1) and (3), W.R.C.P. reads:
“(1) A defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of process is waived (A) if omitted from a motion in the circumstances described in subdivision (g), or (B) if it is neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading or an amendment thereof permitted by Rule 15(a) to be made as a matter of course.
******
“(3) Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”

. The title to the original enactment, Ch. 237, S. L. of Wyoming 1967, reads: “AN ACT to increase the protection which Wyoming’s courts can provide its citizens, by enlarging the personal jurisdiction of Wyoming courts over persons outside Wyoming and providing additional methods of service of process.” (Emphasis added.) The title to the present enactment, Ch. 178, S. L. of Wyoming 1977, reads: “AN ACT to amend W.S. 5-4.3; and to repeal W.S. 5-4.1 and 5 — 4.2 relating to jurisdiction of Wyoming courts; repealing enumerated grounds for personal jurisdiction; allowing personal jurisdiction in all cases except when prohibited by the Wyoming or United States Constitution; and providing for an effective date.” (Emphasis added.)