Addison Hesser v. Danon Blea, et al.

Nevada provides by statute that when a claim is asserted against a trust through its trustee, "[a] judgment may not be entered in favor of the plaintiff in the action unless the plaintiff proves" that it mailed notice of "the existence and nature of the action" to "each of the beneficiaries known to the trustee who then had a present interest," and that "[a]ny beneficiary . . . may intervene in the action and contest the right of the plaintiff to recover." Nev. Rev. Stat. sec. 163.120(2). Petitioner, a named beneficiary of an irrevocable family trust, was serving abroad in the United States Army when respondents obtained a judgment against the trust without giving him any notice. The Supreme Court of Nevada, assuming the statute applied and was violated, held that petitioner suffered no deprivation of property without due process because the trustee had litigated the case, and that he was therefore barred from relief for want of a meritorious defense to claims he never knew existed. The questions presented are:

1. Whether a known beneficiary of a trust, holding a present interest that state law expressly entitles him to protect through pre-judgment notice and intervention, is deprived of property without due process of law when a judgment is entered against the trust corpus without any notice to him, solely because the trustee participated in the litigation.

2. Whether, consistent with Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80 (1988), and Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965), a State may deny relief from such a judgment because the person who received no notice has not shown a meritorious defense to the underlying claims.