Mullane v.
Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
339
U.S. 306 (1950)
Yeazell,
pp. 175-183
BORING!
Facts: Don’t know, and don’t
care. No, seriously…there’s this fund,
and this stuff, and then something happens.
There are people who they can find, and people who they can’t find. They publish something in a newspaper in
Procedural
Posture:
The New York Surrogate’s Court held that the notice given was okay. This decision was affirmed by the intermediate
appellate court and the Court of Appeals of
Issue: May a state
constitutionally dispense with personal service of process even if it knows how
to contact a defendant?
Rule: A method of service of
process must either be (1) “reasonably certain” to provide actual notice, or
(2) the lesser of several evils, that is, a “feasible” form of notice that is “not
substantially less likely” to give actual notice than other options.
Analysis: The Court says that you can’t
just go through the motions, you actually have to try
to let people know something’s going on in court they ought to pay attention
to.
Conclusion: The Court ruled that constructive
notice for unknown persons is constitutionally OK, but that constructive notice
for known persons is unconstitutional.
The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Notes
and Problems
1.
a. They may have
believed that in any in rem action, constructive notice is appropriate
based on Pennoyer.
b. The court says
that the in rem/in personam distinction no longer matters when it
comes to notice.
2. All
beneficiaries who have an address on file must be served notice by mail
(probably certified mail). If a beneficiary
cannot reasonably be located, constructive service may be substituted.
3.
a. It seems that
the court cares about whether it appears you sincerely intend to give other
parties notice of a pending lawsuit or if you’re just going through the motions. If you need to give someone notice in
b. The rule seems
to be that you either need to provide adequate actual notice, or pick the least
bad of your “feasible” constructive alternatives. Individual notice may not be necessary if it
is onerously expensive and there exists an alternative form of notice that is
much cheaper, yet only a little less likely to provide actual notice. I think, in the end, the court simply has to
balance the competing interests of fairness and efficiency just like they always
do.
4. It’s a safe
assumption. I guess constructive service
of process could be a good procedural ploy, but you don’t want to risk losing jurisdiction
because you could have just mailed the dude.
5.
a. So sometimes “process”
really means “jurisdiction”.
b. If you don’t
get proper notice, the result is that the court that issued the notice will not
have jurisdiction.