1. Vickie Lynn Marshall filed a claim in federal bankruptcy court against E. Pierce Marshall for tortiously interfering with the inheritance she expected from J. Howard Marshall. The bankruptcy court ruled in her favor but the Ninth Circuit reversed, citing the probate exception. 2. The Supreme Court held that the probate exception did not apply because Vickie's claim did not require validating or invalidating a will. It was a recognized tort claim for interfering with an expected inheritance. 3. The Court also found that Vickie had a valid expectation of inheritance from J. Howard Marshall based on his promises, and that Pierce's actions of depleting assets and restricting access tortiously interfered with that expectation.

1. Case Brief - Marshall v. Marshall
Citation:
547 US 293 (2006)
Facts:
Vickie Lynn Marshall a.k.a. (Anna Nicole Smith), the plaintiff, was involved in a dispute in Texas
Probate Court over the estate of her deceased husband, J. Howard Marshall. Marshall promised
to give the plaintiff one-half of his wealth. His son, the defendant, E. Pierce Marshall, had
committed several acts while his father was nearing his death to ultimately prevent the plaintiff
from receiving the money she was expecting. These acts include purchasing deferred annuities
to deplete Marshall’s assets and destroying, backdating, altering, or preparing documents and
presenting them to Marshall under false pretenses as well as restricting the plaintiff’s access to
Marshall’s income under the advice of an estate planning lawyer.
Procedural History:
While Texas probate proceedings were ongoing, Vickie Lynn Marshall filed for bankruptcy in
California. E. Pierce Marshall then filed a proof of claimin the Federal Bankruptcy Court,
alleging that the plaintiff had defamed him after the death of J. Howard Marshall. The plaintiff
filed a counterclaim that the defendant had tortiously interfered with a gift that she had
expected from her husband. The bankruptcy court ruled for the plaintiff and awarded her a
large monetary award. Later, the probate court found that the will of J. Howard Marshall, that
excluded the plaintiff, was valid and ruled for the defendant. The defendant appealed the
decision made by the bankruptcy court to Federal District Court, arguing that the court had no
jurisdiction in the matter concerning will and estates. The district court dissented and ruled for
the plaintiff, holding that since her claim did not involve validating or invalidating the will, the
probate exception did not apply. The “probate exception” states that federal courts do not
interfere with state court judgments concerning wills and estates. The Ninth Circuit reversed
the decision made by the district court and interpreted the probate exception differently.
Issue:
1. What is the scope of the “probate exception” to federal jurisdiction?
2. Whether the plaintiff had an expectancy of Marshall’s assets?

2. 3. Whether the defendant tortiously interfered with the plaintiff’s expectancy of a portion
of Marshall’s inheritance when he (1) depleted Marshall’s assets, (2) restricted the
plaintiff’s access to Marshall’s income, (3) presented documents to Marshall under false
pretenses while he was terminally ill and (4) following the advice of an estate planning
lawyer while carrying out all of the above actions?
Held:
1. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision made by the Ninth Circuit and held that
the probate exception did not apply. Because the plaintiff’s claimdid not directly involve
the validation or invalidation of the will or the administration of the estate, the federal
courts did in fact have jurisdiction. The decision was unanimous and the majority
opinion written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg included, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and
Associate Justices, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas,
Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, and Ginsburg herself while Associate Justice John P.
Stevens issued a concurring opinion.
2. The plaintiff did have a financial expectancy of Marshall’s estate because he verbally
promised to give her a certain amount when he was still alive. Marshall was unable to
create a valid will due to the fraudulent acts committed by the defendant.
3. The defendant’s actions tortiously interfered with the expectancy of the plaintiff which
were committed consciously in order to cause Marshall to exclude the plaintiff from his
will and prevent her from receiving the money she was promised.
Rationale:
Vickie’s claimdoes not involve the administration of an estate, the probate of a will, or any
other purely probate matter. Provoked by Pierce’s claimin the bankruptcy proceedings, Vickie’s
claimalleges the widely recognized tort of interference with a gift or inheritance.Trial courts,
both federal and state, often address conduct of the kind Vickie alleges. State probate courts
possess no “special proficiency” in handling such issues. This Court rejects the Ninth Circuit’s
alternate rationale that the Texas Probate Court’s jurisdictional ruling bound the Federal
District Court. Texas courts have recognized a state-law tort action for interference with an
expected gift or inheritance. Texas law governs the substantive elements of Vickie’s tortious
interference claim. But it is also clear that Texas may not reserve to its probate courts the
exclusive right to adjudicate a transitory tort. Jurisdiction is determined “by the law of the
court’s creation and cannot be defeated by the extraterritorial operation of a [state] statute … ,
even though it created the right of action.” The Court has held that federal-court jurisdiction,

3. “having existed from the beginning of the Federal government, [can] not be impaired by
subsequent state legislation creating courts of probate.”