Stern v. Marshall

Last updated

Stern v. Marshall
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 18, 2011
Decided June 23, 2011
Full case nameHoward K. Stern, Executor of the Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, Petitioner v. Elaine T. Marshall, Executrix of the Estate of E. Pierce Marshall
Docket no. 10-179
Citations564 U.S. 462 ( more )
131 S. Ct. 2594; 180 L. Ed. 2d 475; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4791; 79 U.S.L.W. 4564; Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 82,032; 65 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 827; 55 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 1; 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 1232
Case history
PriorMarshall v. Marshall (In re Marshall) 253 B.R. 550 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2001); affirmed in part, vacated and remanded, 264 B.R. 609 (C.D. Cal. 2000); 275 B.R. 5 (C.D. Cal. 2002); reversed and remanded with instructions 600 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2010); cert. granted, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011)
Holding
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court lacked the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor’s proof of claim, even though they are granted statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. §157 (b)2(C). Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
ConcurrenceScalia
DissentBreyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
Laws applied
28 U.S.C.   § 1331, 28 U.S.C.   § 1334, 28 U.S.C.   § 157

Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a bankruptcy court, as a non-Article III court (i.e. courts without full judicial independence) lacked constitutional authority under Article III of the United States Constitution to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor's proof of claim, even though Congress purported to grant such statutory authority under 28 U.S.C.   § 157(b)2(C). The case drew an unusual amount of interest because the petitioner was the estate of former Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith (whose legal name was Vickie Lynn Marshall). Smith died in 2007, before the Court decided the case, which her estate lost.

Contents

Background

Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith married wealthy 89-year-old oil magnate J. Howard Marshall, and he died 14 months later, in 1995. When it appeared she had been excluded from his estate, she sued in Texas state probate court, sparking a long and acrimonious series of litigations between herself and Marshall's son E. Pierce Marshall. At one point, a federal district court determined that Smith was owed $88 million from the estate, while the state probate court determined that she was not owed any such substantial sum. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the federal district court had jurisdiction to rule on the award in Marshall v. Marshall (2006).

The case was sent back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to decide other remaining issues. On March 19, 2010, the same three-judge panel found in favor of E. Pierce Marshall holding that the bankruptcy court did not have the authority to decide the case, and, because the California federal district court should not have reviewed matters previously decided in the Texas probate court, the $88 million judgment for Smith was void. [1] [2] Following the 9th Circuit's decision, lawyers for the estate of Anna Nicole Smith requested the appeal be heard before the entire circuit. However, on May 5, 2010, that request was denied. [3] On September 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court again agreed to hear the case. [4]

Article III, § 1 of the Constitution vests "[t]he judicial power of the United States" in life-tenured and salary-protected judges, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Non-Article III bankruptcy judges may not exercise the general judicial power of the United States and therefore may not finally resolve controversies that are not within the core Article I bankruptcy power Congress relied upon in creating the current system of bankruptcy jurisdiction. In Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. , 458 U.S. 50 (1982), a fractured plurality of the Court held that Article I bankruptcy courts could not constitutionally hear a state law breach of contract claim when the debtor was the plaintiff. The main question presented in Stern v. Marshall was whether a bankruptcy court could constitutionally enter a final judgment on an otherwise non-core tort cause of action asserted as a compulsory counterclaim to a creditor's nondischargeability complaint and proof of claim against the debtor. [5] When the matter came before the 9th Circuit appellate court, it rendered the District Court's decision invalid on preclusion grounds since the Bankruptcy Court's decision was non-core.

The Obama administration and the Executive Office of the United States Trustee, which wanted to expand bankruptcy jurisdiction in state law matters, instructed the United States Solicitor General to submit a brief on the side of the petitioner.

Questions presented

  1. Whether the Ninth Circuit opinion, which renders §157(b)(2)(C) surplusage[ clarification needed ] in light of §157(b)(2)(B), contravenes Congress's intent in enacting §157(b)(2)(C).
  2. Whether Congress may, under Articles I and III, constitutionally authorize core jurisdiction over debtors' compulsory counterclaims to proofs of claim.
  3. Whether the Ninth Circuit misapplied Marathon and Katchen and contravened the Court's post-Marathon precedent, creating a circuit split in the process, by holding that Congress cannot constitutionally authorize non-Article III bankruptcy judges to enter final judgment on all compulsory counterclaims to proofs of claim.

Opinion of the Court

On June 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case (now styled Stern v. Marshall, no. 10-179). The majority of the Court held Congress cannot constitutionally authorize non-Article III bankruptcy judges to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor’s proof of claim. The four dissenting judges were of the opinion that such broad powers are necessary to implement legislative intent and authority under Article I and concerns about the reduced efficiency of the bankruptcy courts.

This decision effectively ended the case and let stand the decision that Smith's estate was not entitled to the money that had previously been awarded to her.

Broader context

The length of the proceedings led the Chief Justice to compare it to the infamous fictional lawsuit Jarndyce v Jarndyce in Charles Dickens's novel Bleak House , which dragged on for over a century and brought nothing but ruin to the parties. This dispute started around 1996. E. Pierce Marshall died in 2006, about a month after the Marshall v. Marshall decision, and Anna Nicole Smith died in 2007. However, litigation continued, with E. Pierce Marshall's widow Elaine and Smith's executor, Howard K. Stern, representing the deceased parties. Stern v. Marshall ended with a ruling against Anna Nicole Smith's estate. However, as of 2017, additional heirs of J. Howard Marshall were still contesting the estate in the Texas probate court, 22 years after his death. The litigation again made news when Judge Mike Wood recused himself that year, citing exhaustion from dealing with the case and the parties. [6] Smith's bankruptcy case was finally closed on October 24, 2022, more than 25 years after it began. [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anna Nicole Smith</span> American actress and television personality (1967–2007)

Vickie Lynn Marshall, known professionally as Anna Nicole Smith, was an American model, actress, and television personality. Smith started her career as a Playboy magazine centerfold in May 1992 and won the title of 1993 Playmate of the Year. She later modeled for fashion companies, including Guess, H&M, Lane Bryant, Conair, and Heatherette.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States courts of appeals</span> Post-1891 U.S. appellate circuit courts

The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary. They hear appeals of cases from the United States district courts and some U.S. administrative agencies, and their decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The courts of appeals are divided into 13 "Circuits". Eleven of the circuits are numbered "First" through "Eleventh" and cover geographic areas of the United States and hear appeals from the U.S. district courts within their borders. The District of Columbia Circuit covers only Washington, DC. The Federal Circuit hears appeals from federal courts across the United States in cases involving certain specialized areas of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J. Howard Marshall</span> American business magnate (1905–1995)

James Howard Marshall II was an American billionaire business magnate, academic, and government official. He was involved with and invested in the petroleum industry via academic, government and commercial endeavors. He owned 16% of Koch Industries. Marshall was married to model and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith during the last 14 months of his life. His estate became the subject of protracted litigation, which was reviewed by the Supreme Court in Marshall v. Marshall and Stern v. Marshall. The court kept the will and testament intact and substantially all of the assets in Marshall's estate wound up in trusts for the benefit of his daughter-in-law, Elaine Tettemer Marshall, and her family.

Federal tribunals in the United States are those tribunals established by the federal government of the United States for the purpose of resolving disputes involving or arising under federal laws, including questions about the constitutionality of such laws. Such tribunals include both Article III tribunals as well as adjudicative entities which are classified as Article I or Article IV tribunals. Some of the latter entities are also formally denominated as courts, but they do not enjoy certain protections afforded to Article III courts. These tribunals are described in reference to the article of the United States Constitution from which the tribunal's authority stems. The use of the term "tribunal" in this context as a blanket term to encompass both courts and other adjudicative entities comes from section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Stuart v. Laird, 5 U.S. 299 (1803), was a case decided by United States Supreme Court notably a week after its famous decision in Marbury v. Madison.

Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a federal district court had equal or concurrent jurisdiction with state probate (will) courts over tort claims under state common law. The case drew an unusual amount of interest because the petitioner was Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith. Smith won the case, but unsolved issues regarding her inheritance eventually led to another Supreme Court case, Stern v. Marshall. She died before that case was decided.

Northern Pipeline Construction Company v. Marathon Pipe Line Company, 458 U.S. 50 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Article III jurisdiction could not be conferred on non-Article III courts.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held an administrative agency may, in some cases, exert jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims.

Howard Kevin Stern is an American attorney based in California. He was the domestic partner, attorney and agent of the late model Anna Nicole Smith. He became known as a co-star on Smith's 2002–2004 reality television series The Anna Nicole Show. As of 2019 he works with the Los Angeles Public Defender's Office.

Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. 122 (1819), dealt with the constitutionality of New York creating bankruptcy laws and retroactively applying those laws.

James Howard Marshall III is president and owner of MDH Industries, an electronics company based in Monrovia, California. He is the eldest son of J. Howard Marshall II, who owned 16% of Koch Industries.

Kelly Moore is an American author and former attorney.

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure are a set of rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States under the Rules Enabling Act, directing procedures in the United States bankruptcy courts. They are the bankruptcy law counterpart to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

David Ormon Carter is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N. A., 562 U.S. 61 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the means test in Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The means test had been adopted by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, and Ransom is one of several cases in which the Supreme Court addressed provisions of that act.

Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. 415 (2014), is a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States that describes the extent of the powers of bankruptcy courts in dealing with the bad faith of debtors.

Bankruptcy in Florida is made under title 11 of the United States Code, which is referred to as the Bankruptcy Code. Although bankruptcy is a federal procedure, in certain regards, it looks to state law, such as to exemptions and to define property rights. The Bankruptcy Code provides that each state has the choice whether to "opt in" and use the federal exemptions or to "opt out" and to apply the state law exemptions. Florida is an "opt out" state in regard to exemptions. Bankruptcy in the United States is provided for under federal law as provided in the United States Constitution. Under the federal constitution, there are no state bankruptcy courts. The bankruptcy laws are primarily contained in 11 U.S.C. 101, et seq. The Bankruptcy Code underwent a substantial amendment in 2005 with the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005", often referred to as "BAPCPA". The Bankruptcy Code provides for a set of federal bankruptcy exemptions, but each states is allowed is choose whether it will "opt in" or "opt out" of the federal exemptions. In the event that a state opts out of the federal exemptions, the exemptions are provided for the particular exemption laws of the state with the application with certain federal exemptions.

Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 589, is an 1891 decision of the United States Supreme Court on equitable relief, res judicata and fraud on the court in diversity jurisdiction. Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote for a unanimous Court that held it unconscionable to allow a state court's decision to stand that had been based on documents later exposed as forgeries. It permitted a federal case seeking to set that verdict aside to go forward.

Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the United States bankruptcy courts.

References

  1. ↑ "Marshall v. Marshall 9th Circuit Second Opinion on Remand" (PDF). March 19, 2010.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ↑ In re Marshall,600F.3d1037(9th Cir.2010).
  3. ↑ "Court won't reconsider Anna Nicole Smith ruling". Boston.com. May 6, 2010. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
  4. ↑ "US top court to hear Anna Nicole Smith fortune case". WNCF-TV News. AFP. September 28, 2010. Archived from the original on July 17, 2011. Retrieved September 29, 2010.
  5. ↑ "The Supreme Court's Holding in Stern v. Marshall". Lexis. July 18, 2011.
  6. ↑ "Judge in Decades Old Anna Nicole Smith Case Announces He's Had Enough". Forbes .
  7. ↑ "Inside Anna Nicole Smith's Battle over Her Billionaire Husband's Estate". Forbes .
    This page is based on this Wikipedia article
    Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
    Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.