Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sample Case Brief - Bank of Guam

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Pinkney-Baird
    21 views1 page
    Bank of Guam sues to foreclose on mortgage executed by Semes on land in Pohnpei. Semes argues the Pohnpei Real Property Mortgage Act precluded the national court's jurisdiction. Under article XI, section 6(b), the Supreme Court has "concurrent" jurisdiction over diversity cases.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Bank of Guam sues to foreclose on mortgage executed by Semes on land in Pohnpei. Semes argues the Pohnpei Real Property Mortgage Act precluded the national court's jurisdiction. Under article XI, section 6(b), the Supreme Court has "concurrent" jurisdiction over diversity cases.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    21 views1 page

    Sample Case Brief - Bank of Guam

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Pinkney-Baird
    Bank of Guam sues to foreclose on mortgage executed by Semes on land in Pohnpei. Semes argues the Pohnpei Real Property Mortgage Act precluded the national court's jurisdiction. Under article XI, section 6(b), the Supreme Court has "concurrent" jurisdiction over diversity cases.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    BankofGuamv.Semes,3FSMIntrm.370(Pon.1988) Facts BankofGuamfiledsuitintheTrialDivisionoftheFSMSupremeCourttoforecloseona mortgageallegedlyexecutedbySemesonlandinPohnpei.BankischarteredinGuamand SemesisacitizenofPohnpei;Bankseekstoinvokediversityjurisdiction. ProceduralHistory Semesfiledamotiontodismiss,arguingthePohnpeiRealPropertyMortgageAct precludedthenationalcourtsjurisdiction. Issues 1. WhenshouldastatecourtheardiversityjurisdictioncasespursuanttoarticleXI, section6(b)oftheConstitution? 2. CanaPohnpeistatuterequirecertaincasestobeheardinstatecourt? 3. Mustlandcasesbeheardinstatecourt? Analysis 1.

    lysis 1.UnderarticleXI,section6(b),theSupremeCourthasconcurrentjurisdictionover diversitycases;howeveritisunclearwhetherthisjurisdictionisconcurrentwithstate courtsorwithothernationalcourtswhichhaveyettobecreated.TheCourtfirstnotes thattheConstitutionalConventionadoptedanamendmentremovingreferencetostate andlocalcourtsinsection6(b),withtheapparentintentthatjurisdictionbeconcurrent withothernationalcourts.ButtheCourtalsonotesthatothersectionsoftheConstitution wouldberedundantiftherewasnopotentialroleforstatecourts,andapprovestheU.S. rulethatstatecourtsmayhavediversityjurisdictiononlyifallthepartiesagree. 2.OnlythenationalCongresshastheauthoritytoprescribejurisdictionpursuantto articleXI,section6(c);astatelegislaturemaynotdoso. 3.Althoughthereisanexceptiontothenationalcourtsexclusivejurisdictionforland issuesinarticleXI,section6(a),thereisnosuchexceptionin6(b).Inanyevent,thisisnot reallyalandcaseperse. Rules 1. Ifallpartiesagreeandstatelawpermits,statecourtsmayhearsection6(b)cases. 2. Statelegislaturesdonothavetheauthoritytoallocatejurisdictiontostatecourts. 3. Nationalcourtsmustbesensitivetothestatesinterestsinlandissuesbutarenot requiredtorelinquishjurisdictionincasesinvolvingland. Conclusion Motiontodismissdenied.

    You might also like