Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.

Citation. 339 US 306 (1950)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation339 US 306 (1950)

Brief Fact Summary.

Mullane, as special guardian appointed to represent the interests of persons who had or might have an interest in the income of the Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.’s common trust fund, appeared specially after the bank brought a petition for settlement of the trust accounts. Mullane complained that notice and statutory provisions for notice to the trust beneficiaries, which permitted notice by publication, did not comport with due process, and that jurisdiction over them was therefore lacking. The New York trial court held that the notice required and given was sufficient,  intermediate appellate court and highest state court affirmed.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

For purposes of due process, notice by publication is insufficient where it is not reasonably calculated to reach a party who could easily have been informed by other means.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

However it may have been in former times, the mails today are recognized as an efficient and inexpensive means of communication.

View Full Point of Law

Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. established a common trust fund, which pooled small trust estates into one larger fund, pursuant to provisions of the New York state banking law. The minimum requirements for notice of the creation of the fund under the New York banking law, and the notice provided by Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., was notice by publication.  Mullane, as special guardian appointed to represent the interests of persons who had or might have an interest in the income of the common trust fund, appeared specially after the bank brought a petition for settlement of trust accounts. Mullane complained that notice and statutory provisions for notice to the trust beneficiaries, which permitted notice by publication, did not comport with due process, and that jurisdiction over them was therefore lacking. The New York trial court held that the notice required and given was sufficient. New York’s  intermediate appellate court and highest state court (New York Court of Appeals) affirmed.

Issue.

In an action involving judicial settlement of trust accounts, did notice by publication to trust beneficiaries, permitted under New York’s banking law, comport with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Held.

No. Notice by publication, permitted under the New York banking law, was incompatible with the requirements of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment where, as here, it deprived known persons, whose whereabouts were also known by the bank, of substantial property rights.

Discussion.

The Court concluded that as to those trust beneficiaries whose whereabouts could not be determined by the bank, exercising due diligence, or whose interests in the trust were conjectural or future or were not otherwise within the knowledge of the common trustee in the due course of business, service of notice by publication was sufficient. However, as to known present trust beneficiaries whose names and post office addresses were known, notice by publication was insufficient because it was not reasonably calculated to reach them; they could easily have been informed by other means.