Allen v. Longworth
| Decision Date | 27 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | 068690/2014 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
| Parties | Chris Allen and KIMBERLY ALLEN, Plaintiffs, v. Richard D. Longworth, THE GLENA E. JAGGER REVOCABLE TRUST OF 2005, & JANICE E. LONGWORTH, Individually and as Trustee of the Glena E. Jagger Revocable Trust of 2005., Defendants. |
PLAINTIFFS' ATTY:
PEDOWITZ & MEISTER, ESQS.
By: Arnold Pedowitz, Esq.
ANTHONY DeCAROLIS, ESQ.
53 East Main Street
Oyster Bay, NY 11771
Upon the following papers numbered 1-23 read on this motion To Dismiss; Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause and supporting papers 1-6; Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers 0 ; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers 7-20; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers 21-22; Other 23 ; (and after hearing counsel in support and opposed to the motion),
"The wavering mind is but a base possession." Euripides' observation reminds us that the law and equity embrace certainty while scorning the vagaries of human conduct.
The matter at hand is an action arising from a dispute concerning an alleged gift of an easement and/or subdivision of certain property in Southampton, New York. Defendants have moved for dismissal in lieu of an answer on the basis of documentary evidence and for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211 §§[a][1] and [7]) . The Plaintiffs oppose the motion and make the following allegations of fact:
In 2002, The Plaintiffs purchased a house and realty in Southampton Village which they operate as a Bed and Breakfast. The adjoining parcel was owned by the decedent, Ms. Glena Jagger. Mr. Allen met Ms. Jagger and they became close friends. He requested, and she acceded, to his request that he use a small portion of her property to be able to access the rear of his own parcel. In 2005, Ms. Jagger executed a document whereby title to her property was conveyed to a revocable Trust. The Defendant Mr. Longworth was the attorney for Ms. Jagger and prepared the Trust documents. In 2012, Ms. Jagger unfortunately passed away.
The verified complaint recites, inter alia :
17.During a number of their conversations Glena expressed that she did not want the property abutting the Bed & Breakfast to be developed and she assured Chris that he would always have access to the rear of the property via the field.
18.In or around 2009, Chris and Glena discussed how to protect the field for Chris' use. Glena said she would discuss with Richard her desire to protect the field for Chris because ... "the Trust would have to be modified in order to accomplish that result"....
25.Richard thereafter told Chris that in order to get the subdivision approved, Chris would have to pay all the costs of the subdivision which would exceed $180,000. The aforesaid costs included expenses unrelated to the parcel of land that was to be conveyed to Plaintiffs and was, on information and belief, deliberately padded by Richard as a means for delaying Chris and defeating Glena's gift.
26.Chris could not afford the exorbitant cost, told that to Richard, and the transfer was changed by Glena to be a gift to Plaintiffs of a portion of the field; namely the Strip...
27.Richard was advised of the reduction in the size of the Strip and discussed it with Chris.
28.Richard told Chris that he would not transfer the Strip then because he did not want to modify the Trust and said he would do it when Glena died. Plaintiffs did not want to unduly stress Glena, relied on Richard's good faith and representations, continued to provide help to Glena, and deferred taking any action to formalize the transfer.
29.Glena made clear that as the decision maker she had given Plaintiffs an unrestricted license, or easement, to use the Field for so long as they owned the Bed & Breakfast, to access the Bed & Breakfast. Plaintiffs understood that the license would end when the Strip was deeded to them at which time they would only use the Strip...
39.On May 28th, 2012 Glena died...
42.Richard stated that regardless of whether Chris purchased the entire parcel of land or not, Chris would receive his promised 20' strip...."
Based on the forgoing recitation of facts, Plaintiffs assert five causes of action
"57.But for Richard's saying that for reasons of convenience to the Trust he would complete the transfer after Glena died, Glena and Plaintiffs would have made sure that it would be done during Glena's life.
58.Plaintiffs relied to their detriment on Richard's representation that he would complete the transfer after Glena dies and therefore took no action to have Glena complete the transfer during her life.
59.Richard's aforesaid representation was false when made and was made with the intention of having Glena and Plaintiffs cease from insisting that the transfer be effectuated.
(Declaratory Judgment)
62.Defendants have repudiated and/or rejected and/or disavowed the gift by Glena, as Trustee of the Trust, to Plaintiffs and have failed and refused to convey the Strip to Plaintiffs.
64.Plaintiffs seek a judicial determination that a gift of the Strip was duly made.
(Constructive Trust)
66.An oral agreement was made and entered into between Plaintiffs and Glena, as Trustee, manifesting the intent that the Strip was gifted and title was to be transferred to Plaintiffs. A license and/or easement to have the free and unrestricted right to use the Field until the Strip was transferred was also given. Defendants Richard and Janice were aware of the agreement and respectively knew that it was their legal duty to effectuate the transfer and/or to preserve the Field for Plaintiffs use under the license until the Strip was transferred.
67.By operation of such agreement, Plaintiffs acquired an interest in the Field and the Strip.
(Specific Performance)
73.The parties entered into an oral agreement which provided that a gift of the Strip was made by Glena and for the formalities of the transfer of the Strip to take place upon Glena E. Jagger's death...
75.Defendants are in breach of their obligations, Plaintiffs have fully performed their obligations, and Plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance conveying the Strip to Plaintiffs.
(Injunctive Relief)
77.Plaintiffs will face undue hardship if Defendants are permitted to sell the Strip to a future purchaser of the property.
78.Plaintiffs request the Court to issue an injunction enjoining Defendants from taking any action to sell the Strip....and enjoining Defendants to deed the Strip to Plaintiffs."
In addition to the complaint, Plaintiffs have submitted evidence in the form of affidavits, copies of emails and a copy of a portion of the revocable Trust document. In our efforts to find facts upon which a credible theory of recovery can be based (and thus defeat the instant motion), we have considered these exhibits pursuant to Subdivision [c] of Rule 3211.
In his affidavit dated December 19th, 2014 Mr. Allen states in pertinent part that "...Ms. Jagger told me that she wished for me to continue to have access to her property via her land for as long as I lived or for as long as I own and operate the bed and breakfast" (para 5). That the decedent "...instructed her attorney, Richard Longworth to modify her revocable Trust" (para 6). However, "...when Ms. Jagger learned that I could not afford the cost of the subdivision, she further directed Mr. Longworth to modify her revocable Trust so that I would be given title to a smaller portion of her land..." (para 7). "Mr Longworth later told me...that he would transfer the strip upon her death" (para 8). "I understood what Mr. Longworth said to mean that the gift was accomplished and all that remained was the ministerial act of doing the paperwork" (para 9). "I relied on what Mr. Longworth said and therefore took no action to have him do the work during Ms. Jagger's life" (para 10). "At Ms. Jagger's funeral in May 2012, Mr. Longworth again promised that he would transfer the strip as directed by Ms. Jagger" (para 11).
The Plaintiffs also submitted an affidavit from Ms. Nanette Stillman, dated Dec 23, 2014. She related, inter alia, that she was Ms. Jagger's caretaker from 2009 until 2012 and observed that the decedent was close friends with the Plaintiffs. Ms. Jagger told her many times that she wanted to give Plaintiffs a piece of her property so that they could access their land. The land was to consist of "A strip of land along the border" (para 7). In describing the source of possible acrimony between herself and the Defendants, Ms. Stillman stated "I believe that Mr. and Mrs. Longworth learned about what I pointed out to Ms. Jagger..." (para 14). Finally, after Ms. Jagger's demise, "At [her] memorial service I heard Mr. Longworth tell Mr. Allen that he, Mr. Longworth, knew Ms. Jagger wanted him to have a piece of land and that it was in the works" (para 18). "I took what Mr. Longworth said to mean that Mr. Longworth was doing what needed to be done so that the piece of land would be transferred to Mr. Allen" (para 19).
The series of e-mails purporting to be between Mr. Allen and Mr. Longworth relate the following:
Dated 9/19/12, from Mr. Longworth
"...I asked Brian if his purchaser would honor the transfer of the 20' strip of land to you and he indicated the buyer would probably agree to that...."
Dated 9/19/12, from Mr. Allen
Dated 9/19/12, from Mr. Longworth
"...We would like to consider givin (sic) you an easement at closing for the use of the 20 feet but we would like to discuss it with you and you (sic) attorney and probably have your attorney discuss it with the buyer's attorney as far as the terms, use, duration, etc.....".
Dated 9/24/12,...
To continue reading
Request your trial