Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
339 U.S. 306 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
Facts
Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company established a common trust fund under New York Banking Law. In March 1947, it petitioned the Surrogate’s Court for settlement of its first account as common trustee, involving 113 trusts and nearly three million dollars. Many beneficiaries existed, some non-residents of New York. The only notice given for this accounting was by publication in a local newspaper, as permitted by state law, which did not name individual beneficiaries. At the time of initial investment, the trust company had sent notice by mail to known beneficiaries. Appellant Mullane, appointed special guardian for income beneficiaries, objected that the statutory notice was inadequate under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Procedural history
Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company petitioned the Surrogate’s Court for settlement of its first account. Appellant Mullane objected to the notice, but the Surrogate overruled the objection, holding the notice sufficient. A final decree accepting the accounts was entered, which was affirmed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court and by the Court of Appeals of the State of New York. The case then came before this Court on appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1257.
Issue
Does notice by publication alone, as prescribed by New York Banking Law for judicial settlement of common trust fund accounts, satisfy the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment for all beneficiaries, particularly those whose names and addresses are known to the trustee?
Holding
The notice by publication required by New York Banking Law § 100-c (12) is incompatible with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis for adjudication depriving known persons whose whereabouts are also known of substantial property rights. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Rule
The fundamental requisite of due process in any proceeding is notice reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. When notice is a person's due, the means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt. For beneficiaries whose interests or whereabouts are unknown, notice by publication is sufficient due to practical difficulties. However, for known present beneficiaries of known residence, notice by publication is insufficient; mail is required because their names and addresses are at hand, and mail is an efficient and inexpensive means of communication.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.