[WSBAPT] in personum jurisdiction under TEDRA

[Philip N. Jones]

It is a common misconception that persons interested in a trust or estate matter must be personally served, particularly if they reside out of state.  The key point is that the court is not being asked to bring those persons within the personal jurisdiction of the court.  Instead, all that is being asked is for the court to adjudicate rights to a trust or estate that is within the jurisdiction of the court.  Personal jurisdiction over the interested parties is not required.  The needed jurisdiction is in rem, not in personam.  The type of notice required by constitutional standards varies from case to case, but in most (perhaps all) trust and estate cases, all that is required is that the interested persons be provided with notice that is reasonably calculated to reach them, to apprise them of the nature of the proceeding, and to give them an opportunity to be heard.  In trust and estate cases, those requirements will almost always be met by a written notice mailed to the interested person.  Personal service is not required.  Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950).  Once the notice is given by mail, the recipient will be bound by the result regardless if that person enters an appearance by filing a responsive pleading.  The mailed notice will usually consist of a copy of the petition or motion, together with a notice of the time period within which to object.
Phil Jones

Philip N. Jones
Duffy Kekel LLP
900 S.W. Fifth Ave. Suite 2500
Portland, OR 97204
pjones at duffykekel.com<mailto:pjones at duffykekel.com>
(503) 226-1371 - office
(503) 853-1482 - cell
(503) 226-3574 - fax

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Shannon Jones
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 4:02 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBAPT] in personum jurisdiction under TEDRA

Listmates, Is there no authority for in personam jurisdiction under TEDRA of an out-of-state "party" as defined under TEDRA but WA's long arm statute? The asset involved is an investment account. The deceased lived in WA. The asset was claimed by the surviving spouse as part of the mandated family support award with notice to a potential beneficiary who resides outside WA. The asset was unclaimed when the beneficiary was served with the TEDRA petition, it was still in decedent's name. Before the hearing, the beneficiary took control and possession of the asset. The court granted the family support award based on the proceeding being "in rem," and ordered beneficiary to return the asset to the surviving spouse. Beneficiary continues to claim the court had no "in personam" jurisdiction, appealing the court order.

[cid:image001.png at 01D994A7.4EB14530]
Shannon R. Jones | Attorney
Campbell Barnett PLLC
Direct:  253.848.3515
Office: 253.848.3513| Fax: 253.845.4941
317 South Meridian
Puyallup, WA 98371
shannonj at campbellbarnettlaw.com<mailto:shannonj at campbellbarnettlaw.com>
campbellbarnettlaw.com<https://campbellbarnettlaw.com/>

This transmission contains confidential attorney-client communications and may not be disclosed to any person but the intended recipient(s).  If this matter is transmitted to you in error, please delete and notify the sender immediately.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20230601/3cb30868/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5361 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20230601/3cb30868/image001.png>