Lexplug logoLexplug

Fall v. Eastin

Supreme Court of the United States
1909 U.S. LEXIS 1726, 215 U.S. 1, 30 S. Ct. 3 (1909)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A court in one state cannot directly affect or transfer title to real property located in another state through its decree or a deed executed by a court-appointed commissioner. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require the state where the property is located to recognize such an extra-jurisdictional conveyance as directly transferring title.


Facts:

  • Sarah Fall and E.W. Fall were married and subsequently acquired land jointly in Nebraska.
  • The couple later moved to the State of Washington, where they established residency.
  • In 1895, while both were residents of Washington, E.W. Fall initiated divorce proceedings against Sarah Fall.
  • The Washington court granted Sarah Fall the divorce and, as part of the property division, awarded her the Nebraska land.
  • The court ordered E.W. Fall to convey the Nebraska land to Sarah Fall, but he refused to do so.
  • Following his refusal, a court-appointed commissioner in Washington executed a deed conveying the Nebraska land to Sarah Fall on his behalf.
  • After the Washington decree, E.W. Fall fraudulently conveyed the same Nebraska land to his sister, Elizabeth Eastin.

Procedural Posture:

  • E.W. Fall sued Sarah Fall for divorce in the Superior Court of King County, Washington.
  • The Washington court granted the divorce to Sarah Fall, awarded her the Nebraska land, and ordered E.W. Fall to execute a conveyance.
  • Upon E.W. Fall's refusal, the Washington court appointed a commissioner who executed a deed for the land to Sarah Fall.
  • Sarah Fall filed a suit to quiet title against Elizabeth Eastin in the District Court of Hamilton County, Nebraska (a state trial court).
  • The Nebraska trial court entered a decree in favor of Sarah Fall.
  • Elizabeth Eastin appealed to the Supreme Court of Nebraska, which initially affirmed the trial court's judgment.
  • The Supreme Court of Nebraska then granted a rehearing and reversed its prior decision, finding in favor of Elizabeth Eastin.
  • Sarah Fall brought the case to the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of error.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution require a state court (Nebraska) to recognize and enforce a deed to land within its borders that was executed by a commissioner appointed by a court in another state (Washington) as part of a divorce proceeding?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice McKenna

No. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require Nebraska to give effect to the commissioner's deed executed under the Washington court's decree. The well-established principle is that the disposition of real property is governed exclusively by the law of the state where it is located (the situs). While a court of equity with personal jurisdiction over a defendant can order that defendant to convey land in another state, the court's decree itself does not operate directly on the title of the land. Similarly, a deed executed by a master or commissioner, acting as an arm of the court, has no greater effect than the decree and is a nullity outside the court's jurisdiction. The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures a judgment is conclusive on the merits of a claim, but it does not grant a court's judgment the power to execute on property in another state.


Concurring - Justice Holmes

No, but for different reasons. The Washington decree validly created a personal obligation for the husband to convey the land to his wife, and this personal obligation is entitled to full faith and credit in Nebraska. However, the Nebraska court did not deny the validity of this personal obligation. Instead, it ruled on a matter of local property law: that this obligation did not bind a subsequent purchaser, even one with notice. The Nebraska court's decision was about the effect of the decree on a third party's title under Nebraska law, not about the validity of the Washington decree between the original parties. This interpretation of state property law, even if potentially incorrect, does not constitute a denial of full faith and credit and is not a federal question for the Supreme Court to review.



Analysis:

This case solidifies the 'situs rule,' which grants the state where land is located exclusive jurisdiction over questions of title. It clarifies the limits of the Full Faith and Credit Clause concerning real property, establishing that while a court's judgment on personal obligations must be respected, its power does not extend to directly transferring out-of-state property. This decision creates a two-step process for litigants: first, obtaining a judgment creating a personal obligation to convey, and second, bringing a new action in the situs state to enforce that obligation if the party refuses to comply. Justice Holmes' concurrence offers an alternative view, suggesting the core issue is not the decree's power but how the situs state's law treats equitable rights against subsequent purchasers.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Fall v. Eastin (1909)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"