quasi in rem

Quasi in rem is a Latin term meaning “as if against a thing.” It refers to a type of civil action which (similar to in rem) is directed against property; but instead of applying to everyone, it only applies to those named in the action. 

When hearing quasi in rem actions, a court may only affect a named defendant's interest in a specific named piece of property. These actions have similarities with both in rem and in personam actions. As is the case with in rem actions, a court may hear a quasi in rem action if the named property is within the court's jurisdiction, even if the court does not have the power to exercise in personam jurisdiction over the defendant. However, a court acting quasi in rem may only affect the interests of a single, named defendant, as is the case in an in personam action.

There are two types of quasi in rem actions, which are typically referred to as quasi in rem subtype 1 and quasi in rem subtype 2. 

Subtype 1

In a quasi in rem subtype 1 action, a plaintiff may sue to enforce a pre-existing interest in the named property. For example, a lender might use a quasi in rem subtype 1 action to foreclose a mortgage.

The case of Garfein v. McInnis provides a good illustration of the quasi in rem subtype 1 principle and its implications. In this case, Garfien (plaintiff) entered into a contract with McInnis (defendant), a resident of Connecticut, to purchase real estate in the State of New York. McInnis breached the contract, and Garfein sued McInnis for specific performance in a New York state court. Here, the Court acknowledged that while the New York Civil Practice Act allows for the service of the summons and complaint to a non-resident defendant outside the State of New York when a plaintiff seeks a determination of rights in property located within New York, this Act does not bring the non-resident defendant’s person within the state court’s jurisdiction. However, the Act explicitly empowers a New York state court to order specific performance of a contract to convey property.

The Court went on to explain that while a proceeding for the specific execution of a contract to convey real estate is not strictly an action in rem, when (as is the case here) such a procedure is authorized by statute, it is, for all intents and purposes, an in rem proceeding. Thus, the action in this case was substantially in rem, and the service upon McInnis outside the State of New York was deemed sufficient.

 
Subtype 2

A quasi in rem subtype 2 action is more complicated. In this type of action, a plaintiff may sue to apply the named property to satisfy their claim against the property's owner, where the plaintiff's claim is unrelated to the property. This type of action is still technically against the named property, not the property's owner. Thus, the outcome of the case is final regarding the plaintiff's claim against the named property and does not affect the plaintiff's future claim against other pieces of property or the property's actual owner. This may present res judicata concerns, however.

Nonetheless, it is often so difficult to satisfy the reasonableness test (i.e. whether it would be reasonable to allow for the selected forum to litigate the action in light of all interests, such as “fair play and substantial justice”) that such jurisdiction is available only in rather special situations.

The first lawsuit at issue in the case of Harris v. Balk demonstrates a quasi in rem subtype 2 proceeding. In this case, Balk, a North Carolina resident, owed $344 to Epstein, a resident of Maryland. Harris, another North Carolina resident, owed $180 to Balk. While Harris was temporarily in Maryland, Epstein sued and served him with a writ of attachment from Epstein for the debt he owed to Balk. Harris consented to this action. This is an action based on quasi in rem subtype 2 jurisdiction because Epstein sued the debt itself, an intangible, to recover the money from Harris that he was owed by Balk.

In 1977 the state of Delaware enacted a statute explicating that any non-resident directors of a corporation chartered in Delaware are subject to personal jurisdiction in the state of Delaware. 

[Last updated in September of 2023 by the Wex Definitions Team]