Guaranty Nat. Title Co., Inc. v. J.E.G. Associates, 96-1089

Citation101 F.3d 57
Decision Date15 November 1996
Docket NumberNo. 96-1089,96-1089
PartiesGUARANTY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.E.G. ASSOCIATES, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Michael W. Rathsack (argued), Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

David J. Fischer, Bradley F. Simon (argued), Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

Serving as the escrow agent for the sale of an apartment and office complex in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, Guaranty National Title Company withheld $9,650 to ensure payment of a transfer tax. After J.E.G. Associates, the buyer, verified that it had paid the tax, Guaranty remitted the retained sum. Unfortunately, someone added a zero, and J.E.G. received $96,500. It kept mum about the excess, and when Guaranty eventually discovered the discrepancy and demanded repayment, J.E.G. refused. It concedes that Guaranty owed it only $9,650 and that the rest is a windfall. But when Guaranty sued, J.E.G. pleaded the statute of limitations. This the district judge held to be a good defense, although he also concluded that J.E.G.'s silence after the receipt of the overpayment, coupled with its refusal to make restitution, showed that its principals were, well, unprincipled--a slimy bunch whose name should be mud in the commercial world. The judge wrapped up: "The only justice that can come in this case will have to come from the marketplace, where other business entities may shun JEG upon hearing news of its rather unscrupulous course of dealings."

Guaranty initiated this case under the diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Its brief on appeal states that it is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Illinois. According to the brief, J.E.G. Associates "is a limited partnership whose principal place of business is in Massachusetts. The partners are all citizens of the State of Massachusetts." J.E.G.'s brief avers that Guaranty's jurisdictional statement "is complete and correct." Guaranty's brief also includes the complaint, which says only: "Defendant, JEG, is a limited partnership whose principal place of business is in Boston, Massachusetts." It does not allege the identity and citizenship of the partners, vital bits of information because a limited partnership has the citizenships of each partner, general and limited. Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 110 S.Ct. 1015, 108 L.Ed.2d 157 (1990). J.E.G.'s pleadings do not contain any information bearing on the partners' identity and citizenship; the remainder of the record is equally silent. So the record as it stood in the district court did not support the assertion of federal jurisdiction. The statement in Guaranty's brief, if true, would suffice-but the lack of detail led us to require the parties to file additional jurisdictional memoranda. At oral argument we told counsel that it is essential to put into the record the name and citizenship of each partner.

According to the joint statement the parties filed in response, J.E.G. Associates has two general and three limited partners. We reproduce the critical language verbatim:

General Partners: Metropolitan Financial Group, Inc. (incorporated in Massachusetts, with its principal place of business in Massachusetts)

VVA Corporation (incorporated in Massachusetts, with its principal place of business in Massachusetts)

Limited Partnership: Jeffrey J. Cohen (a resident of Massachusetts)

Jeffrey J. Cohen 1989 Irrevocable Family Trust (A Massachusetts trust)

Edward Darman Company Limited Partnership, a Massachusetts limited partnership.

The allegations concerning the general partners are proper. The allegations concerning the limited partners are deficient--shockingly so, given the events that precipitated the filing of the statement.

One of the appellate lawyers said at oral argument that J.E.G.'s partners are "residents" of Massachusetts. A judge intervened to remind counsel that citizenship is what matters. When the parties allege residence but not citizenship, the court must dismiss the suit. Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 25 S.Ct. 616, 49 L.Ed. 986 (1905); Denny v. Pironi, 141 U.S. 121, 11 S.Ct. 966, 35 L.Ed. 657 (1891); Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 24 L.Ed. 1057 (1878); America's Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, LP., 980 F.2d 1072 (7th Cir.1992). Having received that aid from the bench, what did the parties tell us but that Cohen is a resident of Massachusetts! His citizenship (which is to say his domicile, see Denlinger v. Brennan, 87 F.3d 214 (7th Cir.1996)) remains unknown.

The second limited partner is said to be a "Massachusetts trust". For purposes of § 1332, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
313 cases
  • Prime Rate Premium Fin. Corp. v. Larson, 18-2071
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • July 11, 2019
    ...id. , so "[w]hen the parties allege residence but not citizenship, the court must dismiss the suit," Guar. Nat’l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs. , 101 F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir. 1996). Citizenship instead turns on "domicile." Von Dunser v. Aronoff , 915 F.2d 1071, 1072 (6th Cir. 1990). "Domicile," a......
  • Smith v. City of Chicago, 97 C 1865.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • February 6, 1998
    ...citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, courts look to a person's domicile, rather than mere residency. Guaranty National Title Co., Inc. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir.1996); Pollution Control Indust. of America, Inc. v. Van Gundy, 21 F.3d 152, 155 n. 5 (7th Cir.1994); America's B......
  • Amakua Development LLC v. Warner
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • January 25, 2006
    ..."the citizenship of an LLC for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its members"); Guaranty Nat'l Title Co., Inc. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58-59 (7th Cir.1996) (teaching that citizenship of a party-individual is the salient issue for purposes of assessing diversit......
  • Maday v. Toll Bros. Inc., Civ.A. 99-1120-A.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • October 18, 1999
    ...of the diversity jurisdiction. There are only partners, each of which has one or more citizenships." Guaranty Nat. Title Co., Inc., v. J.E.G. Associates, 101 F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir.1996).15 Similarly, the fact that Hunter Mill was formed to operate exclusively in Virginia is of no consequence......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Jurisdictional procedure.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 54 No. 1, October 2012
    • October 1, 2012
    ...for at oral argument.... At some point the train of opportunities ends." Id. at 1073-74; see also Guar. Nat'l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir. 1996) (reprimanding litigants for failure to file necessary documentation). America's Best Inns and Guaranty National Title Co......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT