Also known as: quasi-in-rem jurisdiction · quasi in rem
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A jurisdictional basis that permits a court to adjudicate claims against a nonresident defendant by seizing property belonging to the defendant that is located within the forum state. When the claim is unrelated to the property, the mere presence of the asset does not satisfy due process. The minimum contacts standard that governs in personam jurisdiction therefore applies to this form of jurisdiction as well.
Quest Quail, a software developer domiciled in State X, stores decommissioned servers in a State Y warehouse. Patel, an investor domiciled abroad, sues Quail in State Y over a failed equity deal negotiated and performed entirely outside State Y. Patel obtains an attachment order on the servers to support jurisdiction. The court grants Quail's motion to dismiss because the unrelated property alone creates no purposeful contacts with State Y.
Queenie Quick serves as trustee of a trust holding assets in State A. Beneficiaries domiciled in other states challenge the trustee's management. The court exercises jurisdiction over the trust res after providing notice reasonably calculated to reach known beneficiaries. The proceeding binds the parties because the notice satisfies due process even though some beneficiaries reside outside the forum.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Queen Quintero obtains a judgment against an insurer in State B that includes a large punitive award. The insurer challenges the award on due process grounds. The court upholds the judgment after confirming that the forum provided adequate procedures and the award bore a reasonable relation to the harm shown. The presence of the insurer's assets in the state supports enforcement of the judgment.
Quiana Quach visits State C for a brief business meeting and is served with process while there. The plaintiff seeks to enforce a judgment obtained in another state by attaching Quach's temporary assets in State C. The court denies the motion because service during transient presence does not create the minimum contacts required when the claim is unrelated to the forum.
Quentin Quinn, a Florida resident, holds assets in a Delaware trust. A Florida plaintiff sues Quinn in Florida and attempts to attach the Delaware trust interest. The court dismisses the action because Quinn's only asserted contact with Florida is the unrelated trust asset and no purposeful availment supports jurisdiction over the claim.
Quincy Quigley purchases a vehicle in State D and later suffers an accident in State E. The buyer sues the retailer in State E and attaches the retailer's unrelated inventory located there. The court grants the retailer's motion to dismiss because the inventory is unrelated to the accident and supplies no minimum contacts with State E.
No. The Supreme Court held that the minimum contacts standard applies to every exercise of state-court jurisdiction, including quasi in rem actions. When the claim is unrelated to the property, its bare presence does not create the purposeful contacts due process requires.
Supporting sources
In rem jurisdiction determines rights in the thing itself and binds the world. Quasi in rem jurisdiction uses the property only as a means to reach the defendant and adjudicate personal claims that may be unrelated to the asset.
Supporting sources
Attachment alone is insufficient. The defendant must still possess minimum contacts with the forum that make the exercise of jurisdiction fair. Unrelated property cannot substitute for those contacts.
Supporting sources
Notice must be reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise interested parties of the action. Publication alone is inadequate when the defendant's name and address are known.
Supporting sources
…defendant by bringing into court any property of the defendant located in the plaintiff's State. See, e. g. , Zammit, Quasi-In-Rem Jurisdiction: Outmoded and Unconstitutional?, 49 St. John's L. Rev. 668, 670 (1975). For example, in the well-known case of Harris v. Balk , 198 U. S. 215 (1905), Epstein, a resident of Maryland, had…