De Prins v. Michaeles

189 F.Supp.3d 209

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 May 17, 2016

Guy Patrick Roll, Roll Law Office PLLC, Tempe, AZ, John Mark Dickison, 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 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, WITH PREJUDICE AND TO PRECLUDE FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO COMPLAINT

TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Introduction

Plaintiff Harry De Prins ("Plaintiff" or "De Prins") asserts claims against Defendants Michael J. Michaeles, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Donald Belanger and as Trustee of the Donald Belanger Irrevocable Trust, and the Donald Belanger Irrevocable Trust Dated October 28, 2008 (collectively, the "Defendants") for action on a judgment, breach of fiduciary duty and an action to reach and apply interest in a trust. This Order addresses Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Docket No. 46). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted .

Plaintiff originally filed this action on November 28, 2014 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The Defendants were subsequently served four months later, on March 27, 2015, and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to transfer the case to the United States District Court of Massachusetts. The case was transferred from Arizona Federal Court to this Court on June 29, 2015.

Statement of Facts

The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (the "Complaint") (Docket No. 28). The Trustee, a Massachusetts attorney, began representing Donald Belanger in 1994, in connection with a workplace sexual harassment suit filed in Worcester Superior Court. Following a jury verdict in Belanger's favor, Belanger moved from Worcester to Arizona in 2000. In 2007, Belanger got into a water rights dispute with his neighbors, Plaintiff's parents, Simonne De Prins and Armand De Prins, and later moved to California. On October 4, 2008, Belanger's wife committed suicide while they were residing in California. Approximately a week after Belanger's wife's death, Belanger called Michaeles requesting that he prepare an irrevocable trust for him. Michaeles prepared the Donald A. Belanger Irrevocable Trust Dated October 28, 2008. Belanger signed the Trust on November 3, 2008. That Trust names Michaeles as the sole Trustee.

On March 2, 2009, Belanger waited in the parking lot of the Walmart store in Show Low, Arizona for the Plaintiff's parents who were shopping there. While they were loading their vehicle, Belanger approached and repeatedly shot and killed both of them. The following day, March 3, 2009, Belanger committed suicide. Plaintiff is the son and only surviving heir of the De Prins.

History of the Litigation

On or about December 24, 2010, Plaintiff filed an action with Superior Court of Navajo County, Arizona (Arizona Court of Navajo County, Arizona action, Case No. PB2010–00048) ("the Probate Action"), to remove Michaeles as Executor under Belanger's will. After trial, the motion to remove Michaeles as Executor was denied by order dated March 1, 2012. Plaintiff brought a wrongful death action 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. CV2010–000299 (the "Wrongful Death Action"). On July 26, 2010, the Wrongful Death Action was removed to the United States District Court from the District of Arizona, Docket No. 3:10–cv–08133–DKD. In June of 2011, Defendant Michaeles, 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. By order dated July 29, 2011, the Court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims against Belanger's daughter and her husband.

In June of 2015, Harry De Prins, as Creditor in the probate action against the Estate and Plaintiff in both the Wrongful Death Action and the present action, entered into a stipulation in open court with Michael J. Michaeles, as the Personal Representative of the Estate in the Probate Action and the Wrongful Death Action, and as Defendant and Defendant Trustee in the present action. 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 Action (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); and,(4) the Probate Action in Arizona Superior Court would be closed (hereinafter the "Stipulation").

See Order of the Navajo County Superior Court in the Probate Action, Ex. 1 to the First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 45).

In accordance with that Stipulation and Order, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Estate, in the amount of $750,000 in the Wrongful Death Action 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 Action in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $750,000 on July 9, 2015 (the "Consent Judgment").

Prior to the entry of the Consent Judgment, on or around November 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed the present action in the District of Arizona (Docket No. 14–cv–08230), seeking to collect the judgment against the Estate from the assets of the Trust. The parties filed a Joint Motion to Change Venue (Docket No. 20) and the case was transferred to the District of Massachusetts (Docket No. 4:15–cv–40093–TSH). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on July 28, 2015 and counsel for the Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint on August 31, 2015. After a hearing in this Court on October 30, 2015, the motion to dismiss, which was unopposed, was granted, and the motion to amend the complaint was allowed.

The Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on November 4, 2015, which contains three counts: Count I to enforce the Consent Judgment against the Estate; Count II for breach of fiduciary duty against the Defendant Michaeles in his capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate and as Trustee of the Trust; and Count III to reach and apply the assets of the Trust in satisfaction of the Consent Judgment. Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on November 17, 2015.

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).

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).

Jurisdiction and Venue

Ordinarily, a federal court sitting in diversity must apply the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it sits. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co. , 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941). Although Massachusetts is currently the forum of the case, Arizona's choice of law rules apply because this...