Legal Definitions - Quasi in rem

The legal term Quasi in rem refers to a type of court action that focuses on a specific piece of property belonging to a defendant, rather than directly on the defendant themselves. It allows a court to resolve a dispute by affecting only the named defendant's interest in that particular property, even if the court does not have the authority to make a ruling that would personally bind the defendant in all matters.

This type of action is a hybrid, sharing characteristics with two other forms of jurisdiction:

• Like an in rem action, a court can proceed with a quasi in rem case if the specific property in question is located within its geographical jurisdiction, regardless of whether it can compel the defendant to appear personally.
• However, similar to an in personam action, a quasi in rem judgment only affects the interests of a specific, named defendant, not the entire world's interest in the property.

There are two main types of quasi in rem actions:

• Type 1: Enforcing a Pre-existing Interest. In this scenario, the plaintiff is suing to enforce a right they already have in the specific property itself. The claim is directly related to the property.
• Type 2: Satisfying an Unrelated Claim. Here, the plaintiff has a claim against the property's owner that is not directly related to the property itself. The plaintiff uses the property as a way to satisfy a debt or judgment against the owner when they cannot obtain personal jurisdiction over the owner. The court's decision in this type of action only affects the specific property used to satisfy the claim and does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing other claims against the owner or other property in the future.

Examples of Quasi in Rem Actions:

• Example 1 (Type 1 - Enforcing a Pre-existing Interest):

  Imagine a homeowner hires a contractor to build an addition to their house. The contractor completes the work, but the homeowner refuses to pay the agreed-upon amount. Under state law, the contractor might file a "mechanic's lien" against the property, which is a legal claim on the house itself to secure payment for the work done. If the homeowner still doesn't pay, the contractor could initiate a quasi in rem Type 1 action. The court would then have the power to order the sale of *that specific house* to satisfy the contractor's lien, enforcing the contractor's pre-existing right to payment secured by the property. The court's jurisdiction is over the property, not necessarily over the homeowner's entire financial life.

• Example 2 (Type 2 - Satisfying an Unrelated Claim):

  Consider a situation where a business in State A wins a large judgment for breach of contract against a defendant company based in State B. The defendant company has no offices or employees in State A, making it difficult for the State A court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them. However, the defendant company owns a valuable piece of specialized manufacturing equipment that is temporarily located in State A for repairs. The plaintiff business could initiate a quasi in rem Type 2 action in State A to attach and sell *that specific piece of equipment* to satisfy the judgment. The original breach of contract claim is unrelated to the equipment itself, but the equipment's presence in State A allows the court to assert jurisdiction over it to help the plaintiff collect their debt, without needing personal jurisdiction over the defendant company in State A.

• Example 3 (Type 2 - Satisfying an Unrelated Claim with a Foreign Defendant):

  Suppose an individual from Country X is awarded a significant monetary judgment against a wealthy art collector from Country Y for defamation. The art collector has no personal assets or direct ties in Country X, making it impossible for Country X's courts to enforce the judgment personally against them. However, the art collector frequently lends a specific, valuable painting to a museum in Country X for exhibitions. The individual who won the judgment could initiate a quasi in rem Type 2 action in Country X to seize and sell *that particular painting* while it is on display. The defamation claim is unrelated to the painting, but the painting's presence within the court's jurisdiction allows it to be used to satisfy the judgment against its owner, even without personal jurisdiction over the art collector.