De Prins v. Michaeles, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15–40093–TSH

236 F.Supp.3d 482

Harry DE PRINS, Plaintiff

v.Michael J. MICHAELES, Personal Representative of the Estate of Donald Belanger and Trustee of the Donald Belanger Irrevocable Trust and the Donald Belanger Irrevocable Trust Dated October 28, 2008, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15–40093–TSH

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Signed February 15, 2017

Guy Patrick Roll, Roll Law Office PLLC, Tempe, AZ, John Mark Dickison, Ryan A. Ciporkin, Lawson & Weitzen, LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.

Steven Lynn Evans, Evans Dukarich LLP, Tempe, AZ, Michael J. Michaeles, Wolfson, Keenan, Cotton & Meagher, Worcester, MA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Timothy S. Hillman, United States District Judge

Introduction

Plaintiff Harry De Prins ("Plaintiff" or "De Prins") asserts a single claim against Defendants Michael J. Michaeles, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Donald Belanger and Trustee of the Donald Belanger Irrevocable Trust, and the Donald Belanger Irrevocable Trust Dated October 28, 2008 (collectively, the "Defendants") for action to reach and apply interest in a trust after a judgment. This Order addresses Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 60). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied.

Procedural and Factual History

This case is an action to reach and apply the assets of the Trust in satisfaction of a judgment. The underlying action in which the judgment was entered was a wrongful death and negligence action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, Michael J. Michaeles, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Donald Belanger (the "Estate"), among others, arising out of the murder by decedent Donald Belanger ("Belanger") of the Plaintiff's parents. On a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court "must assume the truth of all well-plead[ed] facts and give the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom." Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. , 496 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing Rogan v. Menino , 175 F.3d 75, 77 (1st Cir. 1999)).

The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). See Second Amended Complaint, Docket No. 59. Belanger believed that the Plaintiff's parents, Armand and Simonne De Prins ("De Prins"), were responsible for his wife's suicide stemming from a prior dispute between which was resolved through intense and expensive litigation. That litigation resulted in a monetary judgment against the Belangers. In October of 2008, Belanger's wife, Ellen Belanger committed suicide. The following week, Belanger called the Defendant Michaeles requesting that he prepare an irrevocable trust for Belanger. In late October or early November 2008, Belanger executed the Trust. See SAC, Docket No. 59, Attachment 1( as Exhibit A). Belanger subsequently transferred his investment assets (approximately $460,000) and all of his cash (approximately $225,000) to Defendant Michaeles, as Trustee of the Trust. Plaintiff alleges that transferring substantially all of his assets into the Trust effectively left Belanger insolvent, although the terms of the Trust provided that Defendant, as Trustee, could pay out funds to Belanger.

For a period of six months from October 2008 to March 2009, Belanger followed the parents of the Plaintiff, learning their habits and schedule. On March 2, 2009, Belanger, waited in the parking lot of the Walmart Supercenter store in Show Low, Arizona, while the DePrinses were shopping. While they were loading their vehicle, Belanger approached the DePrinses with a gun and fatally shot them both.

Following the killings, Belanger began driving. As a highway patrol car signaled for him to pull over on Interstate 25 near Albuquerque, New Mexico, Belanger fatally shot himself the officer approached his car.

Plaintiff is the son and only surviving heir of Simone and Armand DePrins, deceased. Plaintiff brought a Wrongful Death Case against, amongst others, Defendant Michaeles, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Donald Belanger, on or around June 1, 2010 in the Navajo County Superior Court for the State of Arizona (Docket No. 2010–000299) (the "Wrongful Death Case"). On July 26, 2010, the Wrongful Death Case was removed by one of the defendants in that case to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Docket No. 3:10–cv–08133–DKD). In June of 2011, Defendant Michaeles, then acting as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Donald Belanger, denied the Plaintiff's claim against the Estate on the basis that the "validity and the amount" of Plaintiff's claim were to be determined in the Wrongful Death Case.

On September 30, 2014, Defendant Michaeles amended his answer in the Wrongful Death Case, and admitted Belanger's liability in the shooting deaths of Simone and Armand DePrins. Following this admission, Plaintiff filed the present action to collect the judgment against the Trust as a creditor of the Estate from the assets of the Trust.

In or about June of 2015, Harry DePrins, as Plaintiff in both the Wrongful Death Case and the present action, entered into a Stipulation in open court with Michael J. Michaeles, as the Personal Representative of the Estate in the Wrongful Death Case. In that Stipulation, the parties agreed that:

"1) Plaintiff's claim against the Estate shall be settled by entry of an agreement for judgment for the Plaintiff against the Estate in the amount of $750,000 in the Wrongful Death Case (10–cv–08133–DKD, doc. no. 73);

2) Collection of the judgment will be exclusively against the Trust in the enforcement action; and,

3) the enforcement action, which was originally filed in the District of Arizona (14–cv–08230), would be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Worcester) (15–cv–40093–TSH, doc. no. 21).

In accordance with that Stipulation and Order, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant Michaeles, as Personal Representative of the Estate, in the amount of $750,000 in the Wrongful Death Case on July 8, 2015 (the "Joint Motion"). Pursuant to the Joint Motion, the District Court for the District of Arizona entered a final judgment in the Wrongful Death Case in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant Michaeles as Personal Representative of the Estate in the amount of $750,000 on July 9, 2015 (the "Consent Judgment"). Plaintiff has made demand on Michaeles, both as the Personal Representative of the Estate and as the Trustee of the Trust, to convey Trust property to satisfy Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff alleges that there are no other available assets to satisfy the judgment of $750,000 and now seeks to collect on the Consent Judgment against the Estate by reaching and applying the assets of the Trust pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. c. 214, § 3 and the equitable remedy of reach and apply under Massachusetts common law.

Plaintiff filed his SAC in this action on June 1, 2016, and the Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss the SAC on June 14, 2016. A hearing was held in this Court on October 6, 2016.

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6 )

To overcome a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a complaint must allege sufficient facts "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 667, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ; Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 546, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The plausibility of a claim is evaluated in a two-step process. Manning v. Boston Med. Ctr. Corp. , 725 F.3d 34, 43 (1st Cir. 2013). First, the court must separate the complaint's factual allegations, which must be accepted as true, from its conclusory legal allegations, which are not entitled to the presumption of truth. Id. at 43 ; A.G. ex rel. Maddox v. Elsevier, Inc. , 732 F.3d 77, 80 (1st Cir. 2013). Second, the court must accept the remaining factual allegations as true and decide if, drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs' favor, they are sufficient to show an entitlement to relief. Manning , 725 F.3d at 43 The court draws on judicial experience and common sense in evaluating a complaint, but may not disregard factual allegations even if it seems that actual proof of any particular fact is improbable. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 667, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ; Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. A motion to dismiss must focus not on whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether he is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Mitchell v. Mass. Dep't of Corr. , 190 F.Supp.2d 204, 208 (D. Mass. 2002). Materials attached to a complaint, or incorporated by reference, are a part of the pleading itself, and the Court may consider them on a motion to dismiss. Trans–Spec Truck Serv. v. Caterpillar , 524 F.3d 315, 321 (1st Cir. 2008).

Dismissal is appropriate if the plaintiff's well-pleaded facts do not "possess enough heft to show that plaintiff is entitled to relief." Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer Pharm., LLC , 521 F.3d 76, 84 (1st Cir. 2008) (internal quotations and alterations omitted). Although detailed factual allegations are not necessary, the standard "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "The relevant inquiry focuses on the reasonableness of the inference of liability that the plaintiff is asking the court to draw from the facts alleged in the complaint." Ocasio–Hernandez v. Fortuno–Burset , 640 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 2011).

Defendant proffers several arguments for dismissal of the SAC, including that Plaintiff has failed to plead the elements of fraud or fraudulent conveyance, that the statute of limitations precludes all claims against the Trust, and...