Silk v. Bond

The probate exception is limited to cases in which the federal courts would be called on to “(1) probate or annul a will, (2) administer a decedent’s estate, or (3) assume in rem jurisdiction over property that is in the custody of the probate court.” Goncalves v. Rady Children’s Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237, 1252 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted).

Plaintiff appealed the grant of a motion to dismiss claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court’s determination that the claims fell under the probate exception of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). On appeal, Plaintiff argued that his suit did not fit into any of the categories included in the probate exception. Neither party contended that Plaintiff is seeking to annul or probate Defendant’s will. Defendant argued that valuing the estate property would interfere with probate court proceedings. The probate exception is limited to cases in which the federal courts would be called on to “(1) probate or annul a will, (2) administer a decedent’s estate, or (3) assume in rem jurisdiction over property that is in the custody of the probate court.” Goncalves v. Rady Children’s Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237, 1252 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted). The Court found that while appraising is a component of administration, in this case the appraisal is a matter or contract interpretation which does not implicate the probate exception. Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 304 (2006). The Court found that the action was not in rem because it was purely contractual and actions for breach of contract are in personam claims. They also found that, if Plaintiff prevailed at trial, he would be awarded an in personam judgment for money damages. Reversed and remanded.