Summary
In Oliver v. Hines, the district court holds that the probate exception to federal diversity jurisdiction does not apply to a suit seeking to invalidate an inter vivos trust. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Marshall v. Marshall, the probate exception is narrowly limited to the probate or annulment of a will, administration of a decedent’s estate, and disposition of property in a probate court’s custody; it does not extend to inter vivos trusts, which are not wills and whose assets are not subject to probate court jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court properly exercises diversity jurisdiction over the trust contest.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the probate exception to federal jurisdiction bars a diversity suit seeking to invalidate an inter vivos trust.
Holdings
- The probate exception does not apply to a suit seeking to invalidate an inter vivos trust that does not involve the probate of a will or administration of an estate, and where the trust assets are not in the custody of a state probate court.
Key quotations
“The probate exception reserves to state probate courts the probate or annulment of a will and the administration of a decedent's estate; it also precludes federal courts from endeavoring to dispose of property that is in the custody of a state probate court. But it does not bar federal courts from adjudicating matters outside those confines and otherwise within federal jurisdiction.” (636)
“Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat 264, 404, 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821) ('must take jurisdiction if it should . . . [as a court has] no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.')” (639)
Factual background
Plaintiff Jane Williams Oliver is the only living child of Colonel William P. Oliver, Jr., who created an inter vivos trust in 1992. A 2008 amendment to the trust named defendant Charleyrene Danforth Hines as trustee and primary beneficiary, with her daughter as contingent beneficiary. Col. Oliver died in January 2012, and his will was separately probated. Plaintiff alleges the 2008 amendment was forged or did not reflect the settlor's intent and sought a declaration that the trust is void. The trust assets exceed $1 million and are not part of the probate estate.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia seeking to invalidate an inter vivos trust. Defendants removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The district court sua sponte considered the applicability of the probate exception and concluded it did not apply.