Mullane v.

Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co

AUTHOR: FABI
PETITIONER: MULLANE
RESPONDENT: CENTRAL HANOVER BANK & TRUST CO.
TOPIC: JURISDICTION OVER THE RES

DOCTRINE:

 Fourteenth Amendment must be applied to all types of jurisdiction regardless of how the state
classified the action.
 Notice by publication is not sufficient under the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis for adjudication
depriving of substantial property rights known persons whose whereabouts are also known, since it is
not impracticable to make serious efforts to notify them at least by ordinary mail to their addresses on
record with the trust company.
 Notice of service of process must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required
information, and it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance.
 Notice by publication will suffice only if there is no practical way of knowing the identity or
location of the party.

FACTS:

 Central Hanover Bank & Trust (CHBT), set up common fund pursuant to a New York statute allowing
the creation of common funds for distribution of judicial settlement trusts.
 There were 113 participating trusts. CHBT petitioned for settlement of its first account as common
trustee.
 Some of the beneficiaries were not residents of New York.
 Notice” was by publication for four weeks in a local newspaper.
 CHBT had notified those people by mail that were of full age and sound mind who would be entitled to
share in the principal if the interest they held became distributable.
 Mullane was appointed as special guardian and attorney for all persons known or unknown not
otherwise appearing who had or might thereafter have any interest in the income of the common trust
fund.
 CHBT was appointed to represent those interested in the principal.
 Mullane appeared specially, objecting that notice by publication, permitted under the applicable statute
was inadequate to afford the beneficiaries due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and that
therefore jurisdiction was lacking.

ISSUE: W/N Notice by publication to the beneficiaries is sufficient, and thus jurisdiction was acquired
over the person of these beneficiaries.

RULING+RATIO: NO.

LEGAL BASIS:

Notice must be reasonably calculated, under all the cirucmstances, to apprise interested parties of the
pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Notice must be of such
nature as reasonably to convey the required information, and it must afford a reasonable time for those
interested to make their appearance. The means employed must be such as one that reasonably might inform
the absent party. Adjudications resulting in the deprivation of life, liberty or property must be preceded
by notice and an opportunity for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case. Personal service of
written notice within the jurisdiction is always adequate in any type of proceeding.

1
APPLICATION:

In this case, the beneficiaries' property rights were at stake here, and without proper notice, the "right
to be heard" provided by the Fourteenth Amendment was of no practical consequence. Constructive service
via newspaper publication, wrote Jackson, was an unreliable method of giving notice, because newspapers
have limited circulation and even then, many people do not examine the legal notices, which are usually in
small type face on the back pages. In this case, the legal notice at issue did not even mention the names of
the beneficiaries.

Furthermore, under normal circumstances, property holders are directly aware of legal proceedings
regarding their property, either directly or through a caretaker. But in this case, the caretaker was the
beneficiaries' adversary - the trustee itself - which could not be expected to give them reasonable notice, and
the special guardian was also not required to give notice.

SUMMARY:
The court deemed it inappropriate to simply assume notice was given to non-resident beneficiaries
through publication. The court ruled that these non-resident beneficiaries lacked the necessary minimum
contacts in order to be fully apprised of the status of certain trusts in their favor. The Court further elucidated
that notice, in all its forms, must be approximated to reach their intended audience, and for entities not to
proceed with this important aspect of jurisdiction with a cavalier attitude.

CONCLUSION:
Therefore, because of the lack of any serious effort to send notice to the beneficiaries, the court held
that jurisdiction was not acquired over the person of these beneficiaries.

DISPOSITION: Judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.