Jurisdiction over Property: Definition & Types

An error occurred trying to load this video.

Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support.

Coming up next: What is the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

You're on a roll. Keep up the good work!

Take Quiz Watch Next Lesson
Your next lesson will play in 10 seconds
  • 0:07 Jurisdiction Over Property
  • 0:53 In Rem Jurisdiction
  • 3:31 Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction
  • 4:53 Lesson Summary
Save Save Save

Want to watch this again later?

Log in or sign up to add this lesson to a Custom Course.

Log in or Sign up

Speed Speed Audio mode
Lesson Transcript
Instructor: Kat Kadian-Baumeyer

Kat has a Master of Science in Organizational Leadership and Management and teaches Business courses.

In rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction give a court power over property. The court's power over the property can be used as leverage or as a means of satisfying a civil action against a defendant. The conditions that are required determine the court's ability to exercise both types of jurisdiction of property.

Jurisdiction over Property

It may seem unreasonable that a court can assert power over a person's property as a means of compelling a litigant to action, but it is perfectly legal. There are two types of jurisdiction over property, or power to control property, that a court can exercise. In rem jurisdiction gives the court power to control property when the court does not possess in personam, or personal, jurisdiction. Similar to in rem jurisdiction, quasi in rem jurisdiction gives power to a court to exercise control over a person's property as a means to force a litigant to appear in court. Either way, both types of jurisdiction over property allow a court to take control of personal property to satisfy a court case.

In Rem Jurisdiction and Shaffer v. Heitner

In rem jurisdiction allows a court to take control over property in cases where it would not normally have this type of jurisdiction. To better understand this type of property jurisdiction, let's review Shaffer v. Heitner (1977) as it relates to in rem jurisdiction and the control of stock.

Heitner, a shareholder of Greyhound Corporation stock, sued the company and 28 of its officials. In the motion to sequester, or take something that is in controversy and surrender it to an unbiased party, Heitner asked the court to seize the parties' property, including stock in the company. The court of original jurisdiction decided against the plaintiff on the basis that in rem jurisdiction did not apply because the corporation and its officials did not have sufficient enough contact with the state. In order to enforce in rem jurisdiction, five conditions must be met:

  • The property must be valuable.
  • The property must be located within the jurisdiction of the court.
  • The court must have actual possession of or solely control the property.
  • Procedural due process or adequate notice of the action
  • Substantive due process

In Shaffer v. Heitner, property jurisdiction could not be established. Using International Shoe v. State of Washington and minimum contact rule, it was decided that Greyhound or its officials did not have a relationship with the State of Delaware sufficient enough to be considered under the forum state's jurisdiction. Not satisfied with the court's decision, Heitner moved the case to U.S. Appellate Court. In appeal, the lower court's decision to rule for the plaintiff was upheld. In effect, in rem jurisdiction was not applicable to the Delaware court because contact by the officials with the forum state could not be determined. Further, the suit was against the officials with Greyhound Corporation being party as a matter of the affiliation and not as a party to the suit. The suit had less to do with Greyhound as a company and more to do with Heitner's issues with the officials. The officials did not satisfy minimum contact with the forum state. For that, Greyhound could not be considered an affective property, and its location in Delaware could not be considered minimum contact. Therefore, power through the use of in rem jurisdiction could not be justified.

In this case, we learned that in order to exercise power over property, the court must have jurisdiction over the property. There are cases when the court does not have jurisdiction over property. In the case of quasi in rem jurisdiction, a court is permitted to exercise power over property in certain instances.

To unlock this lesson you must be a Member.
Create your account

Register to view this lesson

Are you a student or a teacher?

Unlock Your Education

See for yourself why 30 million people use

Become a member and start learning now.
Become a Member  Back
What teachers are saying about
Try it risk-free for 30 days

Earning College Credit

Did you know… We have over 200 college courses that prepare you to earn credit by exam that is accepted by over 1,500 colleges and universities. You can test out of the first two years of college and save thousands off your degree. Anyone can earn credit-by-exam regardless of age or education level.

To learn more, visit our Earning Credit Page

Transferring credit to the school of your choice

Not sure what college you want to attend yet? has thousands of articles about every imaginable degree, area of study and career path that can help you find the school that's right for you.

Create an account to start this course today
Try it risk-free for 30 days!
Create an account