Greiser v. Drinkard

516 F.Supp.3d 430

Francis T. GREISER, Jr., Plaintiff,

v.Joanne L. DRINKARD, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-5044

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed February 2, 2021

Francis Greiser, Jr., Naples, FL, pro se.

John Preston Seiler, Seiler Sautter Zaden Rimes & Wahlbrink, Fort Lauderdale, FL, K. Kirk Karagelian, Shannon S. McFadden, Carroll & Karagelian LLP, Media, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Rufe, District Judge.

Plaintiff Francis T. Greiser, Jr. filed this action pro se against his sister, Joanne Drinkard and her husband, Paul Drinkard, alleging state-law claims of tortious interference with contract, wrongful conveyance and conversion, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with a business relationship, fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, tortious interference with an expectancy, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.¹ Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff opposes the motion and seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add as Defendants his mother, Marian Greiser, and the estate of his late father, Francis Greiser, Sr.² For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss will be granted and the motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint will be denied.

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Allegations in the Amended Complaint

Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Between 2010 and 2014, Plaintiff had a loving relationship with his parents, living in Units 210 and 214 of the same condominium complex, Whittier Towers, in Florida.³ They socialized frequently, mainly during the winter months, as his parents would return to their home in Pennsylvania in the spring.⁴ In 2014, Plaintiff's father suffered a stroke, and was in and out of the hospital for months.⁵ After a visit to his parents in January 2015, Plaintiff received an e-mail from his mother in March 2015, accusing him of trying to break into the family's safe.⁶ Plaintiff alleges that his sister falsely accused him to their mother.⁷ His sister also allegedly gained power of attorney and had her father sign over his assets to her, and engaged in other financial misdeeds.⁸

Plaintiff's father died in May of 2016, and Plaintiff alleges that at the funeral family members told him that his sister was telling people that he had attempted to break into his parents’ safe. Plaintiff later took a polygraph examination to demonstrate that he had not broken into the safe.⁹ In late May and early June 2016, Plaintiff sent two demand notices to his sister to retract her statements.¹⁰ They went unanswered.¹¹

At about this same time, Plaintiff's brother, Robert Greiser, informed him that their sister was pressuring their mother into selling both units in Whittier Towers.¹² Plaintiff alleges that he and his parents had orally contracted for both living rights and future interest in Unit 214 in exchange for unpaid renovation work.¹³ With regard to Unit 210, Plaintiff alleges that in 2012, he and his parents began a lawsuit against Whittier Towers, regarding his ownership of the unit, which was eventually resolved with Plaintiff's name being removed from the proprietary lease for a payment of $60,000.¹⁴ Plaintiff also alleges that his sister wrested control of the family's daycare business away from him and his brother.¹⁵

B. Additional Allegations in the Proposed Second Amended Complaint

In the proposed Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff adds allegations that his father told him about a new will in 2012 that left Plaintiff some property in Florida.¹⁶ Plaintiff accuses his sister of changing the will in 2015 and signing everything over to her.¹⁷ During probate proceedings in Pennsylvania state court, the Orphans’ Court Division of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas determined that there was no 2012 will, and that both the penultimate will executed in 2000 and the final will executed in 2015 left all assets to the surviving spouse, Plaintiff's mother.¹⁸ Plaintiff alleges that his sister hid assets from the probate court and that he was supposed to be left some sort of expectancy.¹⁹ Plaintiff maintains that his sister fraudulently transferred assets of the estate.²⁰ Finally, Plaintiff also includes a claim alleging a breach of a written contract regarding an entitlement to proceeds from the sale of Whittier Unit 210.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

For a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must plead "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ "²¹ This occurs when the claim "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."²²

A court must "accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all inferences from the facts alleged in the light most favorable to [plaintiff]."²³ A court is not required to accept legal conclusions as factual allegations; to overcome a motion to dismiss, the complaint must show "direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory."²⁴

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 guides the amended pleading standard. Under Rule 15(a)(2), "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires."²⁵ Additionally, Rule 15(d) provides that "[o]n motion or reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. The court may permit supplementation even though the original pleading is defective in a claim or defense."²⁶

Moreover, when adding defendants, a plaintiff must also satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, which provides that "[p]ersons ... may be joined in one action as defendants if: any right to relief is asserted against them jointly [or] severally ... with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences."²⁷

Leave to amend should be denied if amendment would be futile or inequitable. Amendment would be futile if "the amended complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim."²⁸ It is inequitable to allow amendment where there has been "undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, [or] unfair prejudice."²⁹ Finally, "pro se pleadings should be construed liberally," but still must meet the applicable legal standards.³⁰

III. DISCUSSION

To the extent that claims in the Amended Complaint and proposed Second Amended Complaint overlap, the Court will analyze the claims together, and will address separately the proposed new claims against new Defendants in the motion to amend.

A. Claims concerning Whittier Units 210 and 214

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims against his sister and her husband for tortious interference with a contract, wrongful conveyance and conversion, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with a business relationship. These claims arise from an alleged oral contract between Plaintiff and his parents for future ownership rights of Unit 214 in exchange for Plaintiff performing unpaid renovation work, and a similar claim for Plaintiff to renovate and then move into Unit 210.³¹

Defendants argue that the Florida statute of frauds bars these claims.³² Under this statute, "no action shall be brought ... upon any contract for the sale of lands ... or of any uncertain interests in or concerning them, or any lease period longer than 1 year ... unless the agreement or promise ... shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith."³³ A party cannot avoid this requirement by reformulating a breach of contract claim into one for fraud, and promissory estoppel is not an exception to the statute of frauds.³⁴ Plaintiff argues that "it is well established in Florida that part performance will remove an oral contract from the statute of frauds and enable it to specifically enforced in equity."³⁵ While this is correct, "[t]he doctrine of part performance to excuse a failure to comply with the statute of frauds is not available in Florida to actions solely for money damages."³⁶ Plaintiff has not sought equitable relief, and because the property has been sold, equitable relief would likely not be available.

To the extent that the claim for tortious interference with a contractual or business relationship is not barred by the statute of frauds,³⁷ Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. The tort requires "(1) the existence of a business relationship, not necessarily evidenced by an enforceable contract; (2) knowledge of the relationship on the part of the defendant; (3) an intentional and unjustified interference with the relationship by the defendant; and (4) damage to the plaintiff as a result" of the interference.³⁸ Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of a valid contract, and has alleged only in conclusory terms that any interference by Defendants was unjustified given the family relationships among the parties. Claims relating to Unit 214 and Unit 210 in the Amended Complaint will be dismissed, and the motion for leave to amend will be denied as to any tort claims.³⁹

B. Claims Concerning the Will of Francis Greiser, Sr.

Plaintiff asserts claims for fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, and for tortious interference with an expectancy. The fraudulent concealment claim, which alleges that his sister failed to list all of their father's assets to the Orphans’ Court, is barred by the probate exception to federal jurisdiction.⁴⁰ The probate exception applies when a "claim for relief requires a federal court to ... probate or annul a will."⁴¹ Furthermore, the probate exception bars a district court from determine whether a testamentary document is invalid.⁴² Thus this Court cannot adjudicate claims relating to the will and the probate...