## Facts

- J. Howard Marshall II married Vickie Lynn Marshall in 1994 and died without altering an estate plan that favored his son, E. Pierce Marshall, and certain charities.
- Vickie alleged that J. Howard intended to provide for her through an inter vivos gift or trust arrangement, but Pierce wrongfully prevented that transfer.
- While estate administration proceeded in a Texas probate court, Vickie filed for bankruptcy in the Central District of California.
- Pierce filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case asserting defamation and seeking related relief; Vickie objected and filed counterclaims, including a state-law claim for tortious interference with an expected inter vivos gift.
- The bankruptcy court treated the matters as core proceedings, rejected Pierce’s defamation claim, and entered judgment for Vickie on the tort claim with compensatory and punitive damages.
- The federal district court concluded the counterclaim was non-core but adopted the bankruptcy court’s determinations and entered judgment for Vickie.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the “probate exception” deprived the federal courts of jurisdiction because the dispute was “at the core” of the probate proceedings and would interfere with the probate court’s control over the estate.

## Issues

1. Whether the probate exception to federal jurisdiction barred federal adjudication of a state-law tort claim for tortious interference with an expected inter vivos gift when related probate proceedings were pending in state court.
2. Whether entering an in personam judgment on that tort claim would improperly probate a will, administer an estate, or dispose of property in the custody of a state probate court.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held the probate exception is limited to (1) probate or annulment of a will, (2) administration of a decedent’s estate, and (3) federal disposition of property in the custody of a state probate court.
- Because Vickie sought an in personam tort judgment against Pierce rather than probate relief or control over probate-held property, the probate exception did not bar federal jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- The probate exception is a judicially created, narrowly confined limitation on otherwise proper federal jurisdiction.
- Federal courts may adjudicate claims by heirs, legatees, creditors, and other claimants so long as the federal action does not probate or annul a will, administer an estate, or assume control over property in the custody of a state probate court.
- A state-law tort claim seeking an in personam judgment is outside the probate exception when it does not require the federal court to exercise control over a probate res.

## Conclusion

The Court confined the probate exception to a narrow set of probate functions and held that federal courts may decide related state-law tort claims within federal jurisdiction when the requested relief is personal liability and does not require the federal court to administer the estate or control property held by the state probate court.


Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006)