In Malaysia yesterday, an appeals court held that civil courts have jurisdiction to hear a case brought by a woman who is challenging the validity of her conversion to Islam as a child. Bernama reports that the decision under appeal (originally handed down by the Penang High Court) had held that only Syariah courts have jurisdiction. Plaintiff Siti Hasnah Vangarama Abdullah claims that she was born into a Hindu family that placed her in an orphanage at age 5. She says that when she was 7, a Muslim Welfare Organization official took her to a Kadi court and ordered her to recite an affirmation of Muslim faith and a rejection of Hinduism. She says she did not understand the meaning of what she was doing, and in any event had no choice in the matter. Defendants on the other hand claim that Siti converted along with her parents and siblings when Siti was only 1 year old. Siti is seeking a court declaration that she was wrongfully required to convert, and is asking the court to order the National Registration Department to change her Muslim name back to her original Hindu name. She also wants the word "Islam" omitted from her identity card.
« Unexpected Quirks of Filing Form 8939 | Main | Article on Drafting For Retention Desires »
January 13, 2012
Georgia Court Lacks Jurisdiction in Trust Case
Beneficiaries of a trust sued the trustee in Georgia federal district court seeking an accounting. The beneficiaries amended their complaint to add claims of breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, conversion, breach of contract, breach of the Wisconsin Uniform Prudent Investor Act, breach of the California Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act (“UMIFA”), breach of the California probate code, breach of the Colorado UMIFA, and breach of the Georgia prudent investor rule, and federal and Georgia, Florida, California, and Colorado racketeering.
The trustee moved to dismiss the federal complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or personal jursidction and improper service after the trustee filed an accounting action in Wisconsin state court. The trustee argued that because the trust assets were not physically in Georgia, the action was quasi in rem and the Georgia federal court had no power over the res and could not hear the case.
In DeWind v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147715 (December 22, 2011), the Georgia federal court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the claims sounded primarily in tort and were quasi in rem. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction because the trust corpus was not in Georgia, the trust was managed in Wisconsin, and the residence of some of the beneficiaries were the only connections to Georgia. The court noted that there is not a “trust exception” similar to the probate exception or the domestic relations exception.
See Dana G. Fitzsimons, Jr. and Meghan L. Gehr, Recent Cases of Interest to Fiduciaries, McGuire Woods (2011).
Special thanks to Jim Hillhouse (Professional Legal Marketing (PLM, Inc.)) for bringing this article to my attention.
January 13, 2012 in New Cases, Trusts | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0168e57809a9970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Georgia Court Lacks Jurisdiction in Trust Case:
