Skip to content

Civil ProcedurePersonal jurisdiction

Hanson v. Denckla

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 23, 1958 · Core case

Full citation

Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958).

VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.

Hanson

executrix of the settlor's will

Denckla

residuary legatee under the will

The parties: Hanson v. Denckla.

Brief

Facts

Dora Browning Donner created a trust in Delaware in 1935, when she lived in Pennsylvania. The trustee was the Wilmington Trust Co., a Delaware company. She kept the income for life. She also kept a power to appoint who would take the remainder, by an instrument made during her life or by will. She could change the trustee and could amend or revoke the trust. In 1944 she became domiciled in Florida, and she stayed there until her death in 1952. After she moved, the trustee sent the trust income to her in Florida, and she handled a few trust matters from there. On the same day in 1949, she signed her will and a power of appointment. The appointment gave $200,000 to each of two Delaware trusts that her daughter, Elizabeth Donner Hanson, had set up for Elizabeth's children. Her will named Elizabeth as executrix. Its residuary clause (the clause that disposes of everything not otherwise given away) sent property over which she held an unexercised power of appointment to trusts for her daughters Denckla and Stewart. Denckla and Stewart argued that the power over the $400,000 was not effectively exercised, so the money passed to them under the will. The Delaware trustee had no office in Florida, did no business there, and never held or administered trust assets there. The record showed no solicitation of business in Florida.

Issues

  1. Could a Florida court exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident Delaware trustee that had no office or business in Florida, when the settlor only later moved to Florida and acted there?
  2. Did Florida have in rem jurisdiction (power over property) over trust assets located in Delaware because the settlor was domiciled in Florida and her will was probated there?
  3. Was Delaware required to give full faith and credit to the Florida decree?

Holding

Florida had neither personal jurisdiction over the Delaware trustee nor in rem jurisdiction over trust assets held in Delaware. Because Florida law made the trustee indispensable, the Florida decree failed even as to the parties properly before it, and Delaware did not have to give it full faith and credit.

The rest of this brief is for subscribers

Every plan includes the procedural history, the rule and the reasoning, the IRAC and CREAC versions, every key quote with its pinpoint, the citation box with parallel citations and short forms and the exam angle.

Learn the citation form

Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.

The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/hanson-v-denckla