the burger court opinion writing...
TRANSCRIPT
The Burger Court OpinionWriting Database
Navarro Savings Association v. Lee446 U.S. 458 (1980)
Paul J. Wahlbeck, George Washington UniversityJames F. Spriggs, II, Washington University in St. LouisForrest Maltzman, George Washington University
$511.prriur Q.:Entrt of tilt Itnitrir tate!?
Pazilingtott. (E. 20,543
CHAMBERS OF
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
May 7, 1980
RE: 79-465 - Navarro Savings Assn.v. Lee
Dear Lewis:
I join.
Regards,
Mr. Justice Powell
Copies to the Conference
Altimente Puri of tilt 21Initet AtattoNaoilittgton. Q. mapig
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE WN. J. BRENNAN, JR. April 25, 1980
RE: No. 79-465 Navarro Savings Association v. Lee
Dear Lewis:
I agree.
Sincerely,
Mr. Justice Powell
cc: The Conference
Atirrentt (court of tilt Atitttr ;Slatesagfringion. P 211Pig
CHAMBERS Or
JUSTICE POTTER STEWART
April 30, 1980
Re: No. 79-465, Navarro SavingsAssn. v. Lee
Dear Lewis,
I am glad to join your opinionfor the Court.
Sincerely yours,
Mr. Justice Powell
Copies to the Conference
ro
t
021
1-1
0
ft.1
ro.31-1
O
r,
O,x1
O
cn.cn
Sincerely yours,
:$ulartutt (Court a tilt tzttro
Paokington, . Q. 2Japg
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE BYRON R. WHITE April 26, 1980
Re: No. 79-465 - Navarro Savings Assn. v.Lawrence F. Lee, Jr., et al
0
/-1OzDear Lewis,
Please join me.
c-)
1-+C
OC15
1■0
O021
C")
Mr. Justice Powell
Copies to the Conference
Rittprrinr (Court of tite ,..%tatts
lao4ington, D. (c.
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL
May 14, 1980
Re; No. 79-465 - Navarro Savings Association v, Lee
Dear Lewis;
Please join me.
Sincerely,
T.M.
Mr, Justice Powell
cc; The Conference
$ttprtutt (Court of titt 'Anita Abateasitiltont, O. al. zripig
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE HARRY A. BLACKMUN April 25, 1980
Re: No. 79-465 - Navarro Savings Association v. Lee
Dear Lewis:
I find this case much more difficult than your opinion -indicates. While I shall probably end up where you do, Iam contemplating, for now, writing separately. I shallappreciate it if you will give me a few days to make up mymind whether to do this.
Sincerely,
Mr. Justice Powell
cc: The Conference
To: The Chief JusticeMr. J1,12tic,.? Erennan
Mr. J;.s-',:ice. 3to'.;artMr.Mr. Just-;.c.,Mr. Justic2
-;t1c-:':. JU.7/ 22 •
Fr= Li. Justice .7.17acmua
MAY 0 5 1980cis c d:
1st DRAFT CT/
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES z1-3
No. 79-465
ONavarro Savings Association,
On Writ of Certiorari to thePetitioner,United States Court of -Ap
u '1-4
peals for the Fifth Circuit.Lawrence F, Lee, Jr. et al. cr,
[May —, 1980] ■•=1
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, dissenting.A reader of the Court's conclusionary opinion might wonder
why this heavily burdened tribunal chose to review this case.Most assuredly, we did not do so merely to reaffirm, ante, at
1-14, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall's ruling from the bench in
1-3Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch 306. 308 (1808), to theeffect that aliens serving respectively as residuary legatee and )-4representative of an estate, "although they sue as trustees;" cn
were entitled to bring a federal diversity action against aGeorgia citizen. Rather. I had thought that we granted cer-tiorari to resolve a significant conflict among the courts ofappeals concerning the question whether the citizenship ofa business trust, for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdic-tion, is determined by looking to the citizenship of its trusteesor that of its beneficial shareholders.' I believe that the
I Compare the decision below, 597 F. 2d 421 (CA5 1979), rev'g 416 F.Stipp. 1186 (ND Tex. 1976), with Belle View Apartments v. RealtyReFund Trust, 602 F. 2d 668 (CA4 1979), and Riverside MemorialMausoleum, Inc. v. UMET Trust, 581 F. 2d•62 (CA3 1978), aff'g 434 F.Supp. 58 (ED Pa 1977). See also cases cited in n. 6. infra, dealing withan analogous question presented in the context of limited partnerships.
The Court of Appeals' decisicn in this case also conflicts with a sub-stantial body of recent holdings of federal district courts, that uniformly.have looked to the citizenship of the beneficial shareholders, and not thetrustees, in determining the existence of diversity in suits brought by oragainst common-law business trusts. See National City Bank v. Fidelco-
To :The Ch i ef JUStiCeMr . Just ic3 3renna2L
Mr . just , cc; StewartYr . Just:LcMr. Ju:t i Mafshall j
. Ju3t i 7,: e 7371311Jurtio
Yr JU3tlee
F7'om: lir. Justice B-Hc1::::.una7zro
tvC-1 r,-.31.1.1at Y.:I :
ntt
2nd DRAFT w
rom0Z
P-i
No. 79-465 Mna
Navarro Savings Association, r.Petitioner, On Writ of Certiorari to the r-.
tTI
United States Court of Ap- HiV. Hi
peals for the Fifth Circuit. cmLawrence F. Lee, Jr. et al. z
cn
[May —, 1980]O P=1
CCMR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, dissenting.
t-to
Oro
I Compare the decision below, 597 F. 2d 421 (CA5 1979), rev'g 416 F. 0Supp. 1186 (ND Tex. 1976), with Belle View Apartments v. RealtyReFund Trust, 602 F. 2d 668 (CA4 1979), and Riverside Memorial
Mausoleum, Inc. v. UMET Trust, 581 F. 2d 62 (CA3 1978), aff'g 434 F. cnSupp. 58 (ED Pa. 1977). See also cases cited in n. 6, infra, dealing withan analogous question presented in the context of limited partnerships.
The Court of Appeals' decision in this case also conflicts with a sub-stantial body of recent holdings of federal district courts, that uniformlyhave looked to the citizenship of the beneficial shareholders, and not thetrustees, in determining the existence of diversity in suits brought by oragainst common-law business trusts. See National City Bank v. Fidelco
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
A reader of the Court's conclusionary opinion might wonderwhy this heavily burdened tribunal chose to review this case.Most assuredly, we did not do so merely to reaffirm, ante, at4, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall's ruling from the bench inChappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch 306, 308 (1808), to theeffect that aliens serving respectively as residuary legatee andrepresentative of an estate, "although they sue as trustees,"were entitled to bring a federal diversity action against aGeorgia citizen. Rather, I had thought that we granted_cer-tiorari to resolve a significant conflict among the Courts ofAppeals concerning the question whether the citizenship ofa business trust, for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdic-tion, is determined by looking to the citizenship of its trusteesor that of its beneficial shareholders.' I believe that the
(hi e-f 1
' '
Stewartits
-3112.11
: --4'71uni. et)1.18
7c)4-24-80?owall
Circ ulat ed: APR 2 4 1980
1st DRAFT P=10
d: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITEDR§TIVEge
No. 79-465 0
Navarro Savings Association,
?3On Writ of Certiorari to thePetitioner, o
United States Court of Ap-v.peals for the Fifth Circuit. oLawrence F. Lee, Jr. et al. oTi
[May —, 1980]
MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.The question is whether the trustees of a business trust
may invoke the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts on
the basis of their own citizenship, rather than that of the /-3trust's beneficial shareholders.
1-4
The respondents are eight individual trustees of Fidelity 0
Mortgage Investors, a business trust organized under Massa-chusetts law.' They hold titre to real estate investmentsin trust for the benefit of Fidelity's shareholders.- Thedeclaration of trust gives the respondents exclusive authority
over this property "free from any power and control of the CShareholders. to the same extent as if the Trustees were
the sole owners of the Trust Estate in their own right. .. ." ' °zThe respondents have power to transact Fidelity's business,
1 Fidelity merged . into a Delaware corporation in 1978, but Fed. Rule cn
Civ. Proc. 25 (c) permits the original parties to continue the litigation.Jurisdiction turns cn the facts existing at the time the suit commenced:Louisville, V. A. tt: C. R. Co. v. Louisville Trust Co., 174 U. S. 552, 556(1599).
2 Fidelity Mortgage Investors Fifth Amended and Restated Declarationof Trust (hereinafter Fidelity Declaration of Trust), App. A44–A45.
3 Id, Art. 3.1, App, A49–A50.
;$uvrentt (Core o
P
f tbegititer itattif
asilitt4trat. P. (4. 2-crPtg
C HAM BEMS OF
JUSTICE LEWIS F POWELL,JR.
April 28, 1980
79-465-Navarro-Savings-Association-v:-•ee
Dear Harry:
Thank you for your note. By all means, take allthe time you need.
Sincerely,
Mr. Justice Blackmun
lfp/ss
cc: The Conference
J ust3r wInanStewart7:1 ite
L-1-7..77.111all
,,-;-'-tmunII7.xquist.
1-,vens
or,From: Mr. -, Powell 0
P:1cs5-8-80 =n
Circulated . rLiIli, ;a13 ,1'...113 L:,
Recirculated: o2nd DRAFT z1-3
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES gc-)0
No. 79-465 r-,n1-31--4
Navarro Savings Association, oOn Writ of Certiorari to the Petitioner, m
United States Court of Ap- ov. peals for the Fifth Circuit.
Lawrence F. Lee, Jr. et al.
MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.The question is whether the trustees of a business trust
may invoke the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts onthe basis of their own citizenship, rather than that of the 1-4trust's beneficial shareholders.
The respondents are eight individual trustees of FidelityMortgage Investors, a business trust organized under Massa- 1-1
chusetts law.' They hold title to real estate investmentsin trust for the benefit of Fidelity's shareholders. 2 Thedeclaration of trust gives the respondents exclusive authorityover this property "free from any power and control of theShareholders, to the same extent as if the Trustees werethe sole owners of the Trust Estate in their own right. . . ." 3
The respondents have power to transact Fidelity's business,
[May —, 1980]
Fidelity merged into a Delaware corporation in 1978, but Fed. RuleCiv. Proc. 25 (c) permits the original parties to continue the litigation,Jurisdiction turns en the facts existing at the time the suit commenced.Louisville, N. A. ct C. R. Co. v. Louisville Trust Co., 174 U. S. 552, 556(1899).
2 Fidelity Mortgage Investors Fifth Amended and Restated Declarationof Trust (hereinafter Fidelity Declaration of Trust), App. A44–A45.
3 Id., Art. 3.1, App. A49–A50.
May 15, 1980
No. 79-465 Navarro Savings Assoc. v. Lee
Dear Chief:
As I will be at the Fifth Circuit JudicialConference on Monday, I would appreciate your announcing mydecision in the above case.
We affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appealsfor the Fifth Circuit. Mr. Justice Blackmun filed adissenting opinion.
Sincerely,
The Chief Justice
LFP/lab
ttprrou' 1:r-ort sf tirr se:„%fairo
Pa5iringtui4 P 211Pt3CHAMBERS
JUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
April 28, 1980ro
==
ro
Re: No. 79-465 - Navarro Savings Assoc. v. Lee
0
Please join me.1-+O
Sincerely,cn
,
!A 0ro
Mr. Justice Powell cn
Copies to the Conference
Cn
=
1-1O
0ryy
0
rjcn
Dear Lewis: