Hanson v. Denckla
357 U.S. 235 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant consistent with the Due Process Clause, the defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; the unilateral activity of a third party is not sufficient to establish the requisite minimum contacts.
Facts:
- In 1935, Dora Browning Donner, a Pennsylvania resident, established a trust in Delaware, appointing the Wilmington Trust Co., a Delaware corporation, as trustee.
- The trust assets, composed of securities, were located and administered in Delaware.
- Donner reserved the income for life and the power to appoint the remainder of the trust assets by will or inter vivos instrument.
- In 1944, Donner moved to Florida, where she became a permanent resident.
- While living in Florida, Donner received income payments from the Delaware trustee.
- On December 3, 1949, while in Florida, Donner executed an inter vivos power of appointment, directing $400,000 from the trust to be paid to other trusts established for her grandchildren.
- On the same day, she executed her will, which provided that any property over which she had an unexercised power of appointment would pass through the will's residuary clause to her daughters, Katherine Denckla and Dorothy Stewart.
- Donner died in Florida in 1952.
Procedural Posture:
- Daughters Katherine Denckla and Dorothy Stewart (residuary legatees) filed a declaratory judgment action in a Florida chancery court (trial court) to invalidate a power of appointment.
- The non-resident Delaware trustee, Wilmington Trust Co., was served by mail and publication but did not appear.
- The Florida trial court dismissed the trustee for lack of jurisdiction but held the power of appointment was invalid.
- Concurrently, a declaratory judgment action was filed in Delaware, where the Delaware Chancellor held the trust and power of appointment were valid.
- On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed its trial court on jurisdiction, holding it had power over the non-resident trustee, and affirmed the invalidation of the appointment.
- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed its Chancellor's ruling, refusing to give full faith and credit to the Florida judgment because Florida lacked jurisdiction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decisions of both the Florida and Delaware Supreme Courts.
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 a state court violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by exercising personal jurisdiction over a non-resident trustee whose only connection to the forum state is its pre-existing business relationship with a settlor who later moved to that state and executed a power of appointment there?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Warren
No. A state court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident trustee under these circumstances violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To be subject to a state's jurisdiction, a non-resident defendant must have 'minimal contacts' with that state, which requires some act by which the defendant 'purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State.' In this case, the trustee, Wilmington Trust Co., had no office in Florida, transacted no business there, held no trust assets there, and solicited no business there. The trust agreement was executed in Delaware with a Pennsylvania domiciliary. The settlor's later unilateral move to Florida and exercise of the power of appointment there do not constitute acts by the defendant trustee. The trustee did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits and protections of Florida's laws. Therefore, Florida lacked both in personam jurisdiction over the trustee and in rem jurisdiction over the trust assets, which were in Delaware. Because Florida law considers the trustee an indispensable party, the Florida judgment is void and Delaware was not required to give it full faith and credit.
Dissenting - Justice Black
Yes. The Florida courts had the constitutional power to adjudicate the effectiveness of the appointment. The Due Process Clause should not deny Florida jurisdiction when the transaction has such substantial connections to the state: the appointment was made in Florida by a Florida domiciliary, and the primary beneficiaries also lived there. The trustee maintained a business relationship with the settlor in Florida for eight years. Given the modern relaxation of rigid jurisdictional rules from cases like Pennoyer v. Neff, the focus should be on 'fair play and substantial justice,' and it was not fundamentally unfair to require the trustee to litigate in Florida, which was the center of the controversy and a convenient forum for the principal parties.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
Yes. Florida had jurisdiction to make a controlling determination about the trust assets. This suit was not to impose personal liability on the trustee but to determine interests in the intangible trust property. The trustee was merely a 'stakeholder' or 'agent' for the settlor, with such a close community of interest that the settlor's Florida executrix could stand in judgment for it. Given that the settlor was domiciled in Florida, her will was probated there, and the power of appointment was integrated with her will, Florida had a 'plain and compelling relation' to the intangible assets sufficient to establish jurisdiction over the controversy, even without personal service on the absent trustee.
Analysis:
Hanson v. Denckla is a foundational personal jurisdiction case that significantly clarified the 'minimum contacts' standard from International Shoe v. Washington. It established the critical 'purposeful availment' requirement, holding that a defendant's contacts with the forum state must result from its own deliberate actions, not the 'unilateral activity' of the plaintiff or a third party. This decision serves as a crucial limitation on the expansion of state court long-arm jurisdiction, reinforcing that due process protects defendants from being haled into court in a state with which they have no meaningful, self-initiated connection. The case provides a clear contrast to McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., distinguishing situations where a defendant actively solicits business in a state from those where the connection is merely fortuitous.
Unlock the full brief for Hanson v. Denckla