回複：here's a link to prove my point

I have to clearify my answer more
Yes, you are right, there is no pure Quasi in rem now. What I mean is under the Supreme Court, the minimum contact requirement is very easy to be satidfied. Especially in the case of actively owning a house in another state, there is almost minimum contact in every case.
Nevertheless, minimum contact is the lowest standard under Constitution. Some states, such as New York, require more to satisfy long arm jurisdiction. Therefore, you have to check the State B's FORUM rule, it is also called (long arm) jurisdiction rule (not venue rule).
If the dispute is related to, or arising from the property, there is jurisdiction in the state property located.

所有跟帖： 

• ok, now we are back to square 1 again -caliber- ♂ (777 bytes) () 02/11/2009 postreply 20:56:15

• 回複：ok, now we are back to square 1 again -sjy0627- ♂ (619 bytes) () 02/11/2009 postreply 21:21:07