Shaffer’s Treatment of In Rem & Quasi-In-Rem

In footnote 17 of Shaffer v. Heitner (not in the casebook), Justice Marshall provides some helpful guidance on the difference between In Rem and Quasi-in-Rem judgments:

“A judgment in rem affects the interests of all persons in designated property. A judgment quasi in rem affects the interests of particular persons in designated property. The latter is of two types. In one the plaintiff is seeking to secure a pre-existing claim in the subject property and to extinguish or establish the nonexistence of similar interests of particular persons. In the other the plaintiff seeks to apply what he concedes to be the property of the defendant to the satisfaction of a claim against him. Restatement, Judgments, 5-9.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 246 n. 12 (1958).

Using the quote above and the rest of the opinion, here are four types of In Rem and Quasi-in-Rem (“QIR”) suits. The table splits the second type of QIR into two sub-types (Type II.A and Type II.B).  Which of the four best describes Shaffer?

 

Nature of suit

MC Analysis

IN REM

Claim to property is subject matter of suit, affects interests of all persons in property.

“[I]t would be unusual for the State where the property is located not to have jurisdiction.”

QIR
TYPE I

Claim to property is subject matter of suit, affects interests of particular persons in property.

“[I]t would be unusual for the State where the property is located not to have jurisdiction.”

QIR
TYPE II.A

Property is not subject matter of suit but is related to suit.  (Ex.: suit for injury on the land of absentee owner, where claim related to rights and duties growing out of ownership).

“The presence of property may also favor jurisdiction.”

QIR
TYPE II.B

Property is neither subject matter of suit, nor related to suit.  (Facts of Shaffer.)

The “presence of the property alone would not support the State’s jurisdiction. If [other ties among the defendant, the State, and the litigation] did not exist, cases over which the State is now thought to have jurisdiction could not be brought in that forum.”

Posted Sept. 24, 2015