# Amicus Curiae Brief — Marshall v. Marshall > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0101%3A13 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2006 - **Citation:** 547 U.S. 293 ## Text ”) No. 04-1544 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States VICKIE LYNN MARSHALL, Petitioner, Vv. E. PIERCE MARSHALL, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit BRIEF FOR THE PHILANTHROPY ROUNDTABLE AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING THE RESPONDENT RONALD A. CASS * CASS & ASSOCIATES, PC 10560 Fox Forest Drive Great Falls, Virginia 22066 * Counsel of Record (703) 438-7590 WILSON-EPES PRINTING COo., INC. — (202) 789-0096 -— WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1ABLE OF AUTHORITIES INTEREST OF AMICUS STATEMENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT \RGU MENI 1 CONGRESS DID NOT EXTEND FEDERAI ILRISDICTION TO MATTERS WITHIN THE SPECIAL COMPETENCE OF STATI PROBATE COURTS \. Precedents recognize the absence of ted cral jurisdicuion over matters speciilly given to state probate courts B. Circuntt court precedents also support absence of federal court jurisdiction over matters specially given to state probat Il PARTICULAR CONCERNS WITH MAI IERS SPECIALLY GIVEN TO STATE PRO BATE COURTS SUPPORT DECISION THAT THERE IS NO FEDERAL JURISDICTION \. Special concerns attach to dispos teow | AIL AL ik } aSSCLS B. In is im } COMSISTCNCS nd pudict economy support special jurisdictro STAC probate COUTTS ( Considerations of legal comsistency ut ldichal CcoMOMY support he propate ee TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION FOR MAI TERS SPECIALLY GIVEN TO STATE PROBATE COURTS IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER DOCTRINES ......0000.00 A. B. 1D. BANKRUPICY Federal jurisdiction ts limited and does not extend to all possible causes 000.0000... Doctrines require courts to avoid unneces- sary interference with state proceedings...... *. Aspects of state law often affect the scope of federal rights and federal jurisdiction...... Even under the narrowest construction of the probate exception. federal jurtsdiction iti, JURISDICTION = DOES NOT IMPOSE A DIFFERENT RULE FROM DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 0.0. NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE COLN- SELLING LIMITATION ON THE PROBATE blog) i 5) |. | re I Ne taiicinsncitestnasiten Ahiieceticttteantivieeniniicsabinenen Pape 20 20 20 29 w ill TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cuses: Page Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992)... 1X. 30) Ashton v. Josephine Bay & C. Michael Paul feound., Inc., 918 F.2d 1065 (2d Cir. 1990)....... 29 Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch FF SRR eae Cn aC 25 Blakeney v. Blakeney, 664 F.2d 433 (Sth Cir. aN a is eaciiacinenerieniadabadsiabaniiilciat hii hetininesbaiestcdenaiitionisn i ae bs) Breaux v. Dilsaver, 254 F.3d 533 (Sth Cir. 2001)... 14 Broderick’ s Will, In re, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) S03 Pay a iiccecninsessicaascciinisesteibestiasenniisidaueatnhidaaiidtdaetenee 8, 22 Casual Male Corp. In re, 317) B.R. 472 ES ee n 27 Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. \ United States, 424 U.S, 800 (1976) oo... 2| District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. beld. Ge rs Oe Ce Rcrissisctcctentnctcsccscinccesncne I Dragan v. Miller, 679 F.2d 712 (7th Cir. 1982). cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1017 (1982).......... 12. 18. dk 29 Ellis v. Davis, VO9 ULS. 485 (1883) 22 Farrell vy. O' Brien, 199 U.S. 89 (N98) ooo. cccceeeone- 8 Georges v. Glick, 856 F.2d 97) (7th Cir, 1988). cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1097 (1989). 14 Glickstein vo Sun Bank Miami, 922 F.2d 666 i | RTE ED Yee -—- (. Aspects of state law often affect the scope of federal rights and federal jurisdiction. The Soheitor General. mn his amicus brict in this case. vugvested that the decision of the Ninth Cricut below ts meoonsistent with the law because it would make the scope of federal jurisdiction turn in part on state law. Brief for United Yrates as Annes Curtae Supporting Petitioner, at 12-13. Whe exact pedigree of this complaint it ts not clear, As a starting point, it cannot be disputed that federal law often makes the effective scope of federal mehts and obli gations turn on aspects of state law. To take one example, lederal tax law allows deductions for certain state tax payments. See. e.g. 26 U.S.C. $8 164i), L640b). The value of the deduction obviously varies according to the level and nature of state tax payments, matters catirely within’ the control of the states. This fact has never been deemed to ratse any question of sovereignty, as the decision to allow state law to alfeet what is paid to the federal government is a decision of federal haw. There is no reason to view the decision to withhold federal jurisdiction from disposition Of core issues committed to the special competence of state probate courts any more than the decrien to allow decisions of state tax law to affect federal tax payments as a threat to federal sovereignty. See. e.. Sutton a. bnylish, supra, 246 LS... at 205-06, 207-0: I Ilis Davis, 109 US. 488. 494, 499 CISK3i In re Broderick ’s Will, supra, 88 US. at SEL-12. The same should he said of the abstention doctrines noted above. and Indeed the United States admits that these doctrines properly pre clude federal courts from taking certain actions thar would undermine the operation of state probate court jurisdiction. Beret ter € mited States, supra, at 15-16. The decision of the federal government to allow matters to he decided in state Courts When interests in judicial economy and consistency support withholding federal purtsdiction is in 73 ho way at odds with the supremacy of national law. National supremacy is NO More in issue when jurisdiction is withheld as a matter of interpretation of the scope of a statutory grant of jurisdiction than where the decision rests on prudential considerations within the discretion of a court. in cither case. although showing respect tor state law. the decision ts one of the national government. The states could not, of course, constrict federal judicial jurisdichion by overriding a federal law. State grants of exclusive jurisdiction to the probate courts would not, inde pendent of the construction of tederal law. constrain the judicial power of the federal courts. See. e.g. Hess 3 Reynolds, 113 U.S. 73, 77 (1885). However. the tact that a state's decisions — including decisions on the scope of matters committed to the special jurisdiction of its probate courts atlect the ambit of federal pudicial purisdiction as a matter of federal law does not provide any reason to question. the decision below. DD. Even under the narrowest construction of the probate exception, federal jurisdiction would not attach in this case. Although the test for federal jurisdiction over probate matiers advocated by (he Solictior General ts narrower than the test adopted by this Court) and narrower than the test used in any circum court the decision im the instant case actuall. fits within the ambit of cases the United States agrees fall outside a proper exercise of federal purtsdiction. The state probate proceeding m this case was concluded belore the decision of the district court was rendeted.” and the district The district court vacated the pudyment of the bankrupts comet following the Conclusion of the probate court proccedimy im Lexus. Pet App. bse. The tinal pudgment in probate Court was December 7 2001 Por App 106-400 The federal district court did not coter tts tinal pudy omen until Man 7, 2002. Pet. App. 144-42. 24 court's decision here like the decisions addressed in cases such as Sutton v. English, supra— was clearly in contlict with the already rendered judgment of the state probate court and would have the effect of invalidating the vers instruments that the state court declared valid. Pet. App. 30. As eleven circuits of the court of appeals have recognized. in such instances the proper understanding is that Congress has decided not to authorize the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See cases cited, supra, in Part Lb, IN. BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION DOES NOT IM- POSE A DIFFERENT RULE FROM DIVERSITY JURISDICTION, The considerations that support this Court's — and all of the cireurt courts’ — construction of federal yurisdiction as exwlad ing matters within the special competence of state probate courts apply equally to federal diversity jurisdiction and other sources of federal jurisdiction. The overwhelming majority of cases raising the issue of the relation of federal jurisdiction and state probate jurisdiction are diversity cases. Courts and commentators, henee, often refer to the absence of federal jurisdiction as “the probate exception to diversity jurisdic: tion.” See. e-e.. Gulden ex re. Gelden v. Golden, supra, 82 b3d. at 357: Dragan v. Miller, supra, 679 F.2d. at 714: Note. 1 Pradennal Exercise: Abstention and the Probate bycep tom te bederal Diversity Jurisdichon, OA Mich. 1. Rev. 134 62005). However. nothing in the nature of the exception or im the considerations of legal consistency and judicial economy that support the exception is limited to the exercise of diversity junschenien. — bederal court determinations on core probate Ihe district court found three pages ef the probated trust to be traudulent. including the signature page ter the trust. Pet) \pp. 126 ludge Prank Fasterbrook. writmg tor the Seventh Circuit, reached a vemlar Conclusren respecting appheation ot the demestic relatrons ’ 25 matiers such as the validity of a will, whether made under diversity jurisdiction, bankruptcy jurisdiction, or general federal question jurisdiction, work the same interference with interests in consistency and judicial economy. On the rare occasions when matiers within the special competence of state probate courts have come forward under bases for federal jurisdiction other than diversity, the courts have recognized that federal law should be interpreted to avoid conflict with the state probate determinations. /arrrs 1. Zion Savines Bank, suprG, quite clearly evidences this recognition. This Court expressly interpreted bankruptey law to avoid conflict with state probate court determinations, despite the fact that the bankruptcy filing anmtedated the probate filing and a specific provision in the bankruptey law addressed the very matter in issue, 317 US.. at 451-53. When this Court declared that federal courts “have sedu- lously refrained, even in diversity cases, (rom intertering with the operations of state tribunals invested with” probate jurisdiction, id.. at 451 (emphasis added), it clearly signaled that the same considerations apply outside the diversity context. Indeed, the implication in that statement is that the considerations apply more outside the diversity Comte xt. ats diversity jurisdiction is justified in large measure by concerns about local court bias, concerns that do not similarly support other bases of federal jurisdiction. See. e.g. Bank of te United States v. Deveaur, S Cranch (9 U.S.) 61.87 C1809), Ii there was any question about the conclusion that the Court was deciding that probate jurisdiction did and Dank ruptey jurisdicuion did not --obtain te determing matters . exception to cases arising under federal question jurisdiction. See Hi ke » Duffy, $27 bd 244. 238 89 eT th Cr PORT While the scope ot that exception ditters trom the scope of the probate exception. sumibar con siderations support the conclusion that the exclusien trom federal panes dhotion does not apply solely to diversity jurisdiction 26 within the special competence of the probate tribunal. the Court put that to rest when it added: “The probate court, not the bankruptes court. is. the appropriate forum for weighing the respective benefits or detriments to those who share in the equity of the decedent's estate, 17 US. at 482. Similarly, in enti v. Petropoulous, 656 F.2d 212 coth Cir. JOST), the court of appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over claims respecting probate matters that were committed to and had been resolved in the probate court of Ohio, The basis for jurisdiction claimed in Tont was federal, question jurisdiction over clams of civil rights Violtions, brought under 42 U.S.C. $1983.) Phaintilt alleged fraud, collusion, and denial of fair trial rights due to state judges’ bras. The circuit’ court declared that, under the precedents of this Court and the circuit’ courts, probate matters are not within federal jurisdiction, /d.. 656 F.2d, at 218. The court's flatly stated conclusion applies the same rule to federal question junsdiction as to diversity jurisdiction, The bankruptey appeals panel for the Eighth Circunt. on dy he Latzimeer, 322 B.R. 108 (th Cir. BAP (Mo.) 2005), raised the issue of its jurisdichion sua sponte, In doing this. the Panel determined that the probate exception apphed to bankruptcy proceedings just as it does to proceedings based on other provisions for federal jurisdiction. Holding that the Markham test applic to bankruptcy proceedings betore it atthout qualification, the court remanded the case to the bankruptcy court with instructions to vacate its order and consider the application of the interference prong ot Varkham, 322 BR. at 116-17. The waite of decedent's tephew had tiled for bankruptey while probate proceedings sere pending. The Appeals Panel found that a critical wedicate for the bankruptey court order was determination of a7 ownership of certain assets. Depending on the outcome of that determination, these assets might be meluded within the decedent's probate estate or excluded trom it. 322 BLR., at 117. The Panel theretore held that the bankruptey court needed to determine if decision of the controversy before i would impermissibly interfere with state probate proceedings. If so, that matier was outside the jurisdiction of the bank ruptey court. Jd. The application of this Court's Markham test to bankruptes proceedings is consistent with the Court's precedents and also with the concepts that underlie those precedents. See. ee. William L. Norton, Jr., Norton Bankruptey Law and Practu« 2d §4:71 (2006). Construction of federal jurisdiction as excluding matters that go to essential aspects of probate law - 10 matters that are committed exclusively to probate courts or that functionally are placed within thew special competence—promotes legal consistency and judicial econ: omy just as much when bankruptey jurisdiction ts at issue as when diversity jurisdiction ts at issue. Nothing in the bankruptcy law is to the contrary. The bank ruptcy code includes an express provision for abstention to allow resolution of issues related to bankruptcy im state court proceedings, 28 U.S.C. §1334(c), That provision does not speak to probate proceedings directly or in amy way signal a design to alter the rule that federal jurisdiction does not atiacl to claims within the spectal jurisdiction of state probate courts. The abstention provision of $1 8440c) addresses a broad range of possible state court actions that might better be resolved apart trom bankruptcy and allows destrict courts to determine whether abstention would be “in the mterest of Justice, or in the interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law.” 28 U.S.C. §1334te7 1). See abso I8 LSC. §$1334(e2). So, for example, abstention might be requested tO allow a contract dispute between parties to be resolved in State court, see, e.e.. /n re Casual Male Corp. 347 BR. 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), or to allow prosecution of contempt 28 proceedings arising out of a domestic relations dixpute, see, ev. ln re Moon, 211) BR. 483 (S.D.NLY. 1997). This provision indicates Congressional concern over matters related to comity and federalism, and arguably is supported by the sort of concerns with consistency and judicial economy that support exclusion of issues within the special competence of probate courts from federal jurisdiction, the abstention provision in the Bankruptcy Code, how - ever, does not reverse that exclusion. It solely addresses circumstances in which there is admitted federal jurisdiction over a cham. ft does not discuss the historic construction of federal jurisdiction as excluding matters within the special competence of probate courts and does not suggest a design to supersede probate court determinations of core probate issues, such as the validity of testamentary documents. Hf the law's drafters had mtended that result, it is reasonable to expect that they would have san so directly. In. short, nothing m the Bankruptcy Code itsell provides sufficient ground to overcome the long-standing construction of federal jursdichon as excluding such matiers. The one case that expresses a contrary conclusion is Goery v. Parungao, 844 F.2d 1562. 1505 Cllth Cir, 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 (1989). This case does not, on in spection, provide any basis for that conclusion. The Goer case is a contest not between US. bankruptey and probate jurisdiction, but between foreign and US. jurisdiction. The question in Goerg was whether the trustee of a foreign citizen was a “debtor” within the meaning of Section 304 of the US. Bankruptcy Code. FE U.S.C. $304. 4 provision dealing with disposition of assets related to a foreign bankruptcy pro ceeding. Goerg, the German bankruptey trustee. sought to enjoin U.S. proceedings and to include decedent's assets in the German proceeding. fn passing. the Eleventh Circuit stated that the probate exception atteets only the scope of diversity jurisdiction, fd. 844 F.2d at 1865. The issue was not essential to the decesion of the case. Tt was not the ground 29 on which the bankruptcy court had ruled that tt lacked authority to issue the injunction sought by Goerg. The dictum in Goerg is in conthet with authority of this Court, with other lower court decisions,’ and with the legal concepts that underlie this Court's interpretation of the scope of federal jurisdiction. Vv. NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE COUNSELING LIMITATION ON THE PROBATE EXCEPTION IS IN ISSUE. The brief of the Solicitor General argues that there ts a special circumstance when claims of the United States, or claims against the United States, are in issue and special reasons to allow a federal forum for such claims. Concerns respecting forum-shopping (and related conduct designed to divert matiers from a potentially unfavorable state probate venue) seem to apply solely to private parties and not to the United States. That observation would seem to support a different rule at least for claims by the United States. That issue, however, need not be addressed, as this cause does nol involve either claims by the United States or against the United States. Although the Solicitor General questions the provenance and historic scope of the probate exclusion trom tederal jurisdiction, even judges who have shared those concerns have concluded that “it is too well established 4 feature of our federal system to be lightly discarded.” Dragan «Miller, supra, 679 F.2d, at 713. See also Meser v. Pollin, supra, 294 F.3d. at 340, Ashton vo Josephine Bay & ©. Michael Paul Found... Inc, 918 F.2d 1065, 1072 (2d Cir, 1990). Congress The epimen ale conthet, with the blescath Circuit's doetien on Glu dstem © Sun Bank Miam:, supra, which applied the Mar dhane analy ws to a RICO action. trading that there would be ne umtertotence bec ate there Was no psue of will interpretation er will \aladity and me prospect ot mitertennye with probate proceedings. 92) bold. 678 (CONCLUSION --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0101%3A13. Public record. Not legal advice.