Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
339 U.S. 306 (1950)
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that for an action to be accorded finality, the notice provided must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.
Facts:
- Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company established a common trust fund under New York Banking Law, pooling the assets of 113 smaller trusts.
- The trustee, Central Hanover, had the names and mailing addresses of many of the current income beneficiaries on its books.
- In March 1947, Central Hanover petitioned a court for a judicial settlement of its first account, a legal proceeding that could terminate the beneficiaries' right to sue for improper management during the accounting period.
- The only notice provided to beneficiaries about the settlement hearing was by publication in a local newspaper for four successive weeks, which was the minimum required by the New York statute.
- The published notice did not name the beneficiaries but rather was addressed generally to all parties interested in the common trust fund.
- Many beneficiaries of the constituent trusts were not residents of the State of New York.
Procedural Posture:
- Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company petitioned the Surrogate’s Court of New York for the judicial settlement of its first account of the common trust fund.
- The Surrogate’s Court appointed Kenneth J. Mullane as special guardian and attorney for all persons with an interest in the income of the fund.
- Mullane appeared specially, objecting that the court lacked jurisdiction over the beneficiaries because the statutory notice by publication violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Surrogate's Court entertained and overruled Mullane's objections and entered a final decree accepting the accounts.
- Mullane, as appellant, appealed the decree to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, which affirmed the lower court's decision.
- Mullane, as appellant, then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court, which also affirmed.
- Mullane subsequently appealed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 notice by publication alone, as prescribed by New York Banking Law for the judicial settlement of a common trust fund account, satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to beneficiaries whose names and addresses are known to the trustee?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Jackson
No. Notice by publication is incompatible with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis for adjudication depriving known persons whose whereabouts are also known of substantial property rights. The fundamental requirement of due process is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pending action. While the state's interest in settling fiduciaries' accounts is significant, it must be balanced against the individual's interest in being heard. For beneficiaries whose identities or addresses are unknown, notice by publication is sufficient because it is the best means available. However, for known beneficiaries with known addresses, publication is a 'mere gesture' and not a reliable means of providing notice. When a party's name and address are readily available, the reasons for using a less effective method like publication disappear, and due process requires a more direct method, such as ordinary mail, which is efficient and not unduly burdensome.
Dissenting - Justice Burton
Yes. The notice provided is constitutionally sufficient. The determination of what kind of notice, beyond the statutory publication and the representation by a special guardian, should be provided to beneficiaries is a matter properly within the discretion of the State of New York. The Federal Constitution does not require more than what was provided in this case.
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally reshaped the constitutional requirements for notice under the Due Process Clause, moving away from rigid, formalistic categories like 'in rem' and 'in personam'. It established a flexible, practical standard of 'notice reasonably calculated under all the circumstances' that has become a cornerstone of modern civil procedure. The ruling significantly strengthened the notice protections for individuals whose property rights are at stake in legal proceedings, requiring that the method of notice be one that someone 'desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt'. This precedent impacts countless types of legal actions, from tax foreclosures to class action settlements, by requiring a genuine effort to notify affected parties when their identities and whereabouts are known.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"