Hague Service Convention in Germany: In re Estate of Graf Droste Zu Vischering
Certified Translators, Interpreters, Genealogists, Historical Records Experts
"*" indicates required fields
Questions? Email Us.
A group of Iowa commercial tenants trying to reopen their deceased landlord’s estate learned that, because the sole beneficiary lived in Germany, they could not simply mail or hand him the papers but had to satisfy the requirements of an international treaty.
Professional German legal document translation services are required for service of process in Germany. In In re Estate of Graf Droste Zu Vischering, 782 N.W.2d 141 (Iowa 2010), the Supreme Court of Iowa confronted a question it had never before addressed: when a party who must be served with process lives abroad in a country that, like the United States, belongs to the Hague Service Convention, do the familiar service rules of Iowa civil procedure govern, or does the Hague Service treaty control? Writing for the court, Justice Baker held that the treaty controls. The decision reversed the district court and sent the case back for a closer look at whether the attempted service had actually complied with the Hague Convention’s requirements.
The Underlying Dispute
The conflict began with a commercial office building in West Des Moines, Iowa. Clemens Graf Droste Zu Vischering owned that building outright from roughly 1982 until at least November 1997. The petitioners had all, at one point, leased office space there. They alleged that Clemens had breached their rental agreements and defrauded them by relying on a secret formula to inflate the rent they paid. As they read their written leases, the contracts guaranteed a particular number of square feet of office space at the agreed price, and they suspected the actual measurements fell short of that promise. To pursue these claims, they needed information held within the records of Clemens’s estate, and so they sought to reopen it.
By the time the tenants acted, the ownership picture had grown more complicated. In November 1997, Clemens transferred his interest in the building to a limited liability company, Vischering, L.L.C., which kept its principal place of business at the same West Des Moines address, and then sold his interest in that company to his son, Benedikt Graf Droste Zu Vischering. Clemens died on June 3, 1998. A petition to probate his will followed in February 1999, and Benedikt emerged as the sole beneficiary. Because Clemens had been a nonresident alien, the estate became entangled in a dispute with the German taxing authority over its tax obligations, which delayed administration. The estate finally closed on October 5, 2006, with the court noting that no claims had been filed against it.
Attempts to Reopen the Estate
The tenants filed their application to reopen the estate on April 18, 2008, and the district court scheduled a hearing and ordered that a copy of the order and the application be served on Benedikt at his home in Germany. The estate’s executor resisted from the outset.
The tenants then tried to serve Benedikt twice: by mail on July 9, 2008, and through personal service on July 30, 2008. The executor moved to quash both attempts as defective because the tenants had ignored the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. In his view, the order required personal service in Germany, which triggered the treaty, and the treaty in turn demanded that service be routed through the German Central Authority and accompanied by English to German legal translations. Because the tenants had done neither, he sought dismissal without prejudice for failure to serve original notice within ninety days of filing.
The original claims were dismissed, but the dispute did not end there. The same parties and claims reappeared in a new case against the estate, accompanied by a supplemental application to reopen and a renewed request for direct personal service on Benedikt in Germany. The court declared the earlier motion to quash moot. The executor again resisted, and this time the district court ruled squarely that serving Benedikt did not require compliance with the Convention. Its reasoning rested on two Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure: because neither Rule 1.305 nor Rule 1.306 defined the applicable method of service as requiring the transmittal of documents abroad, the treaty simply did not apply. The court again ordered service on Benedikt at his German residence, and the estate sought and obtained an interlocutory appeal.
The Standard of Review and the Convention’s Mandatory Scope
The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the matter de novo, consistent with how federal courts treat the interpretation of a treaty, while noting that the meaning of treaty language is ultimately a question of law. The narrow but consequential issue was whether this was a case to which the Convention applied at all.
The court began with the treaty’s purpose and pedigree. The Hague Service Convention is a multilateral treaty that grew out of the 1964 Hague Conference of Private International Law and was designed to revise earlier civil-procedure treaties from 1905 and 1954. Its aim was to streamline service abroad so that documents reach the people they are meant to reach in time to respond, and to provide a single reliable method that avoids the friction created by other approaches. Both the United States and Germany have joined it.
The scope of the treaty is fixed by its first article, which provides that it applies in all civil or commercial matters where there is occasion to transmit a document for service abroad. The United States Supreme Court, in Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, had already characterized that language as mandatory. And under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Convention preempts any inconsistent service methods prescribed by state law in every case to which it applies.
Where the District Court Went Wrong
The district court had leaned heavily on the structure of Iowa’s service rules. Rule 1.305 lists the acceptable forms of personal service, including a catch-all provision, 1.305(14), permitting service by court order consistent with due process when the other methods cannot be used. Rule 1.306 allows service on individuals within or outside the state in the manners set out in Rule 1.305 and adds that nothing in the rule limits the right to serve notice within or outside the state by any method permitted by statute or rule. Reading these provisions together, the district court treated the second sentence of Rule 1.306 as a kind of trump card: anything that conflicted with Iowa’s approved methods, including the treaty, could be disregarded.
The Iowa Supreme Court rejected that reading. The district court, it concluded, had misread both the governing case law and Rule 1.306. Volkswagenwerk does not stand for the proposition that state service rules override the treaty. It holds something narrower: an American plaintiff need not serve a foreign defendant abroad when the forum state’s law permits serving the defendant’s domestic agent inside the United States. There, a wrongful-death plaintiff served a German parent company by serving its American subsidiary, which an Illinois long-arm statute authorized as substituted service on a domestic agent. Because that service satisfied the constitutional standard of notice reasonably calculated to inform interested parties, and because the subsidiary qualified as the parent’s domestic agent, no transmittal abroad was necessary and the treaty never came into play.
The situation in the estate case was the opposite. The district court had ordered the tenants to serve Benedikt at his home in Germany, and documents had in fact been sent abroad, first by mail and then by personal service. As the Supreme Court explained, the internal law of the forum state may decide whether notice must be accomplished by personal service abroad, but once a court orders documents to be transmitted abroad, the Convention’s provisions take hold. The Supremacy Clause settled the rest. Because the United States ratified the Convention, it is the supreme law of the land, and Iowa’s rules cannot authorize personally serving Benedikt in Germany when the treaty requires service through the German Central Authority. The court invoked a Hawaii decision making the same point: state law cannot override the Convention where the Convention applies. The district court had therefore erred.
Three Methods of Service and Open Questions
Holding that the treaty applied did not end the inquiry. The court next asked whether the service that had actually occurred satisfied the Convention. The treaty permits three relatively liberal methods of service: through the central authority of the receiving country, through diplomatic or consular agents the receiving country does not find objectionable, and by any method permitted by the internal law of the receiving country. Germany, however, has narrowed these options. It objected to the provision allowing direct personal service, so within Germany service is permitted only through the Central Authority, though court personnel may carry out personal service if it is specifically requested through that authority.
This is where the record failed the tenants. They had tried to serve Benedikt by mail and by personal service, and the file contained a return receipt suggesting that personal service had been attempted in compliance with German law through the Coesfeld District Court. But the Iowa Supreme Court could not tell from the record whether that service had been properly initiated through the German Central Authority, nor whether the documents had been translated into German before being served. Because both steps are central to the Convention, the court could not determine, on the record before it, whether the tenants had complied.
The Ruling and Lessons for Litigants
The court held that the district court erred in concluding that service on Benedikt did not require compliance with the Hague Service Convention, and in excusing the tenants from the treaty’s demands for English to German translation of legal documents routed through the German Central Authority. It reversed the judgment and remanded the case so the lower court could decide whether the service that had been accomplished actually met the Convention’s standards.
The decision is a clear reminder for litigants and courts alike: once a court directs that documents be transmitted abroad to a defendant in a Hague Service Convention country, the treaty governs, and convenient state-law shortcuts will not do. The practical lessons are concrete. Mailing papers to a defendant in Germany or arranging private personal service there will not do. Service must move through the receiving country’s central authority, respect that country’s particular objections and limitations, and include any required legal document translations. A return receipt showing that papers reached their target does not, by itself, prove that the treaty’s procedures were honored.
Case Discussed:
In re Estate of Graf Droste Zu Vischering, 782 N.W.2d 141 (Iowa 2010).
Up Next: Serving and Subpoenaing Chinese Defendants Requires Compliance with Hague Conventions