Kramer v. Koeller

RACHEL M. KRAMER and CLAIRE E. KRAMER, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT M. KOELLER, individually, and ROBERT M. KOELLER, in his capacity as Successor Trustee of theREVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT of BARBARA K. KRAMER a/k/a BARBARA J. KRAMER, Defendant.

No. 19-cv-3247

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

February 27, 2020

OPINION

TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law (d/e 2) (Motion) filed by Defendant Robert M. Koeller, individually and as successor trustee of the Revocable Trust Agreement of Barbara K. Kramer a/k/a Barbara J. Kramer dated October 8, 2012 (Trust). The parties have consented to proceed before this Court. Consent to the Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge and Reference Order entered February 20, 2020 (d/e 15). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.

REMOVAL JURISDICTION

This matter comes to the Court on diversity removal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Plaintiffs Rachel M. Kramer and Claire E. Kramer (the Daughters) are the daughters of the late Barbara K. Kramer a/k/a Barbara J. Kramer (Decedent). Rachel Kramer is a citizen of Ohio. Claire Kramer is a citizen of Illinois. Robert Koeller is the brother of the Decedent and the Daughters' uncle. Koeller is a citizen of Indiana. On January 15, 2019, the Daughters brought this action in Macoupin County, Illinois, Circuit Court to set aside the terms of the Trust, which left half the Trust corpus to Koeller. The Trust corpus is approximately $600,000.00. The Daughters named Koeller as the Defendant in his capacity as successor trustee of the Trust. On September 18, 2019, the Daughters filed an Amended Complaint. Notice of Removal (d/e1), attached Amended Complaint to Declare Void and Set Aside Revocable Trust Agreement of Barbara K. Kramer a/k/a Barbara J. Kramer and Last Will and Testament of Barbara K. Kramer (Amended Complaint). The Amended Complaint sought to set aside the Decedent's Last Will and Testament dated October 8, 2012 (Will) as well as the Trust. The Amended Complaint also added Koeller individually as a Defendant. See Notice of Removal, ¶¶ 7-8. On October 18, 2019, Koeller removed this Action to this Court within 30 daysof service on him individually. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446. The Court finds that it has diversity removal jurisdiction.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Koeller moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. Motion, at 1; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For purposes of the Motion, this Court must take all well-pleaded facts as true and draw all inferences in favor of the Daughters. See Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 372 F.Supp.3d 663, 667 (N.D. Ill. 2019). When read in that light, the Amended Complaint alleges the following.

The Decedent died on November 11, 2018. At the time of her death, her estate was worth approximately $600,000.00. Prior to her death, the Decedent was a plaintiff in a case against the manufacturer of the medication Vioxx (Vioxx Litigation). The Decedent received a settlement in the sum of $450,408.00. Koeller is an attorney. Koeller received an attorney fee in the Vioxx Litigation in the sum of $20,821.15. Koeller served as the Decedent's direct representative and attorney in the Vioxx Litigation. Koeller was not the principal attorney handling the Vioxx Litigation, but he represented his sister, the Decedent, in the Vioxx Litigation. Koeller had a fiduciary relationship with the Decedent as her representative in the Vioxx Litigation. Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 5-11.

As a result of Koeller's knowledge of the Decedent's settlement in the Vioxx Litigation, he undertook to work his confidential relationship with the Decedent and his undue influence over the Decedent so that on October 8, 2012, she executed the Trust and the Will. The Will provided that her estate would be distributed into the Trust and administered according to the terms of the Trust. The Trust provided that Koeller would receive half of the corpus of the Trust at the time of the Decedent's death, thereby making Koeller a 50% beneficiary of the Trust. The Daughters are the sole heirs of the Decedent. But for the Trust, they would receive all of the Decedent's estate. On October 8, 2012, the Decedent also executed a quit claim deed (Deed) that conveyed her real estate to the Trust. The Deed was recorded on October 10, 2012. Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 11-13; Motion, Exhibit 2, Deed.

Koeller did not allow and/or prevented the Decedent from maintaining a relationship with the Daughters to ensure that he would get half of the corpus of the Trust upon the Decedent's death. Koeller exercised complete control over the Decedent's financial assets. Koeller prevented the Decedent from using her assets to benefit her Daughters during her lifetime. Koeller provided false information about the Daughters to the Decedent to ensure that he would get half of the corpus of the Trust.Koeller attempted to get the Decedent to resign as trustee prior to her death so that he could control the Trust as successor trustee before the Decedent's death. Through his undue influence, Koeller caused the Decedent to provide in the Trust that if he did not survive the Decedent, that half of the corpus of the Trust would go to Koeller's spouse rather than to the Daughters. Amended Complaint, ¶¶14-15.

The Daughters allege that the Trust and the Will were not prepared nor executed as the result of a freewill of the Decedent but resulted from the undue influence of Koeller. The Daughters ask the Court to set aside the Trust and the Will and declare that the Decedent died intestate, thereby allowing the Daughters to inherit the Decedent's entire estate. Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 16-17.

ANALYSIS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissal is proper where a complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Federal Rules require only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," and allegations must be "simple, concise, and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) & (d)(1). The Court may also consider matters of public record in determining whether a complaint states a claim. Henson v. CSC Credit Services, 29F.3d 280, 284 (7^th Cir. 1994). While a complaint need not contain detailed, specific factual allegations, it must contain sufficient facts to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible if the plaintiff "pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim is plausible on its face if it provides the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 608 (7^th Cir. 2007). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate when "the factual detail in a complaint [is] so sketchy that the complaint does not provide the type of notice of the claim to which the defendant is entitled under Rule 8." Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility, LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 667 (7^th Cir. 2007).

To allege a claim for undue influence, a plaintiff in Illinois must allege improper influence that overwhelmed the actual intent of the testator or settlor:

As this court has previously stated, undue influence which will invalidate a will is "'any improper * * * urgency of persuasion whereby the will of a person is over-powered and he is induced to do or forbear an act which he would not do or would do if left to act freely.' [Citation.]" (Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean (1983), 95 Ill.2d 452, 460, 69 Ill.Dec. 960, 448 N.E.2d 872.) To constitute undue influence, the influence "'must be of such a nature as to destroy the testator's freedom concerningthe disposition of his estate and render his will that of another.' [Citation.]" Franciscan Sisters, 95 Ill.2d at 460, 69 Ill.Dec. 960, 448 N.E.2d 872; see also Swenson v. Wintercorn (1968), 92 Ill.App.2d 88, 105, 234 N.E.2d 91.

In re Estate of Hoover, 155 Ill. 2d 402, 411, 615 N.E.2d 736, 740 (Ill. 1993); see also In re Estate of...