Culwick v. Wood

384 F.Supp.3d 328

Vivienne CULWICK, as Administratrix of the Estate of Steven Eliot Wood, Plaintiff,

v.Andrae E. WOOD, Defendant.

1:15-cv-05868 (ENV) (SMG)

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed May 18, 2019

Perry S. Friedman, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Anthony Proscia, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck LLP, New York, NY, Adam Matthew Marshall, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck LLP, Woodbury, NY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

ERIC N. VITALIANO, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Vivienne Culwick, as administratrix of the estate of Steven Eliot Wood (the "Estate"), commenced this action on October 13, 2015. ( Compl., ECF No. 1 ). After twice amending it, the complaint presents claims for breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment arising from the distribution of the proceeds of the decedent's annuity fund and pension plan. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 34-79, ECF No. 67 ). Counterposed are counterclaims asserted by defendant Andrae E. Wood, for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference with contract. (Answer ¶¶ 99-129, ECF No. 68 ). The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the motions are granted in part and denied in part, and the matter is respectfully referred to Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold for a report and recommendation on damages.

Background

I. Divorce

Steven Eliot Wood married Andrae E. Wood on September 24, 1984. (Def.'s Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 6, ECF No. 94-21 ("Def.'s 56.1") ). About 12 years later, in 1996, the decedent became romantically involved with Culwick. (Id. ¶ 10). Once Andrae Wood discovered the affair, her relationship with her husband became strained. (Id. ¶ 11). With his marriage disintegrating, the decedent and Culwick would begin living together full time in 1998. (Id. ¶ 10). By 2004, the decedent and Wood were completely separated, (id. ¶ 16), and, in April 2006, Wood was granted a divorce, (id. ¶¶ 17-18).

On or about June 26, 2006, the Woods executed a property settlement agreement. (Id. ¶ 23; see Property Settlement Agreement, Decl. of Anthony J. Proscia, Ex. G, ECF No. 94-8 ("Agreement") ). This agreement was incorporated into the final judgment of divorce, entered on or about July 28, 2006. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 26). Three provisions of the property settlement agreement are relevant to this action. First, the agreement provides that "nothing herein contained shall require either party to renounce or disclaim any gift, devise or bequest which he or she may be given by the other's Will, Trust, or other document." (Agreement ¶ B(2)). Second, it states, "[T]he Wife agrees that the Husband shall otherwise retain all pensions and annuities acquired by him at any time, including during the term of the marriage.... The Wife waives any claims she might have in and to these benefits including the right to be named as a survivor beneficiary." (Id. ¶ D(3)). Finally, it provides that "[e]xcept as herein otherwise provided, each party may dispose of his or her property in any way." (Id. ¶ B(3)).

II. Pension & Annuity Funds

The decedent's life work was as a stagehand, and he was a member of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local Union No. 1. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 40). As a union member, he received a variety of benefits, including an annuity fund and a pension plan, (id. ¶ 43), governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 - 1461 ("ERISA"). He had designated Andrae Wood as the primary beneficiary of the annuity and pension. (Id. ¶¶ 44, 48). He also had designated his father as the contingent beneficiary. (Id. ¶¶ 45, 49). Even after the divorce, the decedent did not change the primary beneficiary from Andrae Wood to anyone else. (Id. ¶ 59). Defendant contends that this was despite the fact that union members are frequently reminded to keep their benefit forms up to date and the forms are widely available. (Id. ¶¶ 53-58, 60-62). Culwick responds that these facts are immaterial and unsupported by documentary evidence. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Counterstatement ¶¶ 53-58, 60-62, ECF No. 94-36 ("Pl.'s 56.1") ).

III. Steven Wood's Death

On or about December 30, 2012, death would find Steven Wood. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 34). He died without a will, (id. ¶ 35), and unmarried, (id. ¶ 38). He was survived by his father, the sole beneficiary of his estate. (Id. ¶ 39). In mid-February 2013, Andrae Wood learned of her former husband's death. (Id. ¶ 63). She was contacted by someone from the annuity and pension fund, who advised her that she was designated as the primary beneficiary of the decedent's funds. (Id. ¶ 64). She completed the forms necessary to transfer the benefits to her name, (id. ¶ 66), and began receiving benefits in March 2013, (id. ¶ 67).

The decedent's father and the Estate also submitted claims to the fund. (Id. ¶ 68). The fund denied these claims because Steven Wood had designated Andrae Wood as the primary beneficiary. (Id. ¶ 69). Despite receiving several demand letters, (id. ¶¶ 70-71), Andrae Wood did not relinquish the benefits to the decedent's father or the Estate, (id. ¶ 72). Later came a change in the dramatis personae . By a document executed on February 17, 2017, the decedent's father assigned to Culwick, as administratrix of the Estate, his claims against Andrae Wood arising out of her claim to the pension and annuity fund benefits. (Id. ¶ 74).

Legal Standard

A district court must grant summary judgment to the movant if "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed. 2d 265 (1986). A court's responsibility in assessing the merits of a summary judgment motion is not to try issues of fact, but merely to "determine whether there are issues of fact to be tried." Sutera v. Schering Corp. , 73 F.3d 13, 16 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Katz v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. , 737 F.2d 238, 244 (2d Cir. 1984) ); see also Kaytor v. Elec. Boat Corp. , 609 F.3d 537, 545 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting that, on summary judgment, "the court ‘may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence’ " (emphasis omitted) (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods. , 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed. 2d 105 (2000) )).

The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, see Jeffreys v. City of New York , 426 F.3d 549, 553 (2d Cir. 2005), and the motion court will resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion, see Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. , 391 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir. 2004) ; Gummo v. Village of Depew , 75 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 1996) ("If, as to the issue on which summary judgment is sought, there is any evidence in the record from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the opposing party, summary judgment is improper."); Heilweil v. Mount Sinai Hosp. , 32 F.3d 718, 721 (2d Cir. 1994) (noting that summary judgment can be granted "only when no rational jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party"); Brooklyn Heights Ass'n, Inc. v. Nat'l Park Serv. , 818 F. Supp. 2d 564, 567 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ("A court must construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party ....").

Whether a fact is material is dictated by the substantive law governing the claim on which summary judgment is sought. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed. 2d 202 (1986) ("As to materiality, the substantive law will identify which facts are material. Only disputes over the facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment."); Heilweil , 32 F.3d at 721 ("Only by reference to the substantive law can it be determined whether a disputed fact is material to the resolution of the dispute."). Thus, where the moving party "will bear the burden of proof at trial," that party bears the initial procedural burden at summary judgment of demonstrating that undisputed facts "establish the existence of [each] element essential to that party's case." Celotex Corp. , 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

If the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party. See George v. Reisdorf Bros., Inc. , 410 F. App'x 382, 384 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order). The nonmoving party may not rely solely on "conclusory allegations" or "speculation" in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Scotto v. Almenas , 143 F.3d 105, 114 (2d Cir. 1998). Instead, the nonmoving party can prevail by "designat[ing] specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex Corp. , 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). If the evidence favoring the nonmoving party is "merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citations omitted). Moreover, when "the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of [his] case with respect to which [he] has the burden of proof," summary judgment should be granted. Celotex Corp. , 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

Discussion

I. Standing

Andrae Wood first argues that Culwick lacks standing to bring this action, which, if true, would be fatal. Article III of the Constitution "limits the ‘judicial power’ of the United States to the resolution of ‘cases’ and ‘controversies.’ " Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc. , 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S. Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed. 2d 700 (1982). Simply put, Supreme Court precedent requires that a plaintiff have standing to sue and that the requirements of standing continue to be satisfied throughout the...