Carroll v. Hill

• Decision Date: 08 September 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:20-cv-01833
• Citation: 559 F.Supp.3d 645
• Parties: Kim Arlene CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. Eva Arlene HILL a/k/a Eva Arlene Barber, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

559 F.Supp.3d 645

Kim Arlene CARROLL, Plaintiff,

v.Eva Arlene HILL a/k/a Eva Arlene Barber, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01833

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

Signed September 8, 2021

Amanda A. Barreto, Wickens Herzer Panza, Avon, OH, Mark M. Mikhaiel, Aanchal Sharma, Schneider Smeltz Spieth Bell, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff.

David H. Wallace, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant Eva Arlene Hill.

David H. Wallace, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, Cleveland, OH, Julia Meister, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, Cincinnati, OH, for Defendants Michelle Barber, William A. Barber, William D. Barber.

Todd C. Hicks, Thrasher, Dinsmore & Dolan, Chardon, OH, for Defendant Geauga County Park District.

OPINION AND ORDER

J. Philip Calabrese, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Kim Carroll brought this action seeking a declaration that she is the rightful heir of her alleged father's estate, among other claims for relief. Given the nature of Plaintiff's claims, the Court directed the parties to brief whether the probate exception to diversity jurisdiction bars this case from proceeding in federal court. Plaintiff maintains that it does not, the Barber Defendants say it does. Notwithstanding Plaintiff's artfully drafted pleadings, which carefully frame this dispute to fall outside the narrow probate exception, the Court determines that granting the relief Ms. Carroll seeks would interfere with tasks that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of State courts. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Taking as true the facts alleged in the complaint and construing them in Plaintiff's favor, Plaintiff bases her claims on the following facts. Albert Barber died on September 18, 1998. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 36, PageID #6.) In February 1999, his sister, Defendant Arlene Barber, applied in Geauga County Probate Court to administer the estate. (Id. , ¶ 37; ECF No. 1-4, PageID #36.) The application did not list Plaintiff as Albert's next of kin, although Ms. Barber knew Plaintiff was Albert's biological daughter. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 38, PageID #6.) In August 2000, Ms. Barber applied in Geauga County Probate Court to probate a lost will, representing that Albert's executed will was lost and that she only had an unsigned copy. (Id. , ¶¶ 43, 44 & 51, PageID #7–8.) The probate court admitted the unsigned will and distributed the estate accordingly. (Id. ,¶ 46, PageID #7.) Most of Albert's estate went to Ms. Barber, who was the executor. (Id. , ¶¶ 11, 46, 52–53, PageID #3, 7–8.) After distribution of the estate, Ms. Barber transferred portions of her inherited real property to other members of the Barber family between 2003 and 2018. (Id. , ¶¶ 54, 65–66, PageID #8, 10.)

In August 2018, several years after Albert's estate was probated, Ms. Barber told Plaintiff that Plaintiff was Albert's illegitimate daughter. (Id. , ¶ 26, PageID #5.) This was the first time Plaintiff heard Albert was her father, although Ms. Barber knew all along. (Id. , ¶ 35, PageID #6.) Several days before Plaintiff's paternity conversation with Ms. Barber, Dorothy Phillips, who is Ms. Barber's sister, filed an emergency motion for a guardianship over Ms. Barber, who was allegedly incompetent. (Id. , ¶ 67, PageID #10.) In November 2018, the Geauga County Probate Court found Ms. Barber incompetent due to dementia. (Id. at ¶ 70, PageID #11.) The probate court appointed Michelle Barber, the wife of Ms. Barber's nephew, as Ms. Barber's guardian. (Id. , ¶ 71; ECF No. 1-15, PageID #82.)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Arlene Barber, other members of the Barber family, and the Geauga County Park District. The complaint hinges on Plaintiff's claim that Albert's assets were wrongfully distributed after his death and improperly transferred among the Barber family. Plaintiff was not a named beneficiary nor informed about the lost will application, but now believes she is entitled to legal and equitable remedies as the rightful heir to Albert's assets. (See ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 45, 52–53, PageID #7–8.) Plaintiff asserts thirteen counts against Defendants: tortious interference (Count 1); breach of fiduciary duty (Count 2); negligence (Count 3); fraud/fraudulent concealment (Count 4); fraudulent conveyance (Count 5); unjust enrichment (Count 6); imposition and foreclosure of equitable lien on properties originally transferred to or inherited by Ms. Barber (Counts 7 and 8); quiet title (Count 9); civil conspiracy (Count 10); unauthorized practice of law (Count 11); breach of fiduciary duty against William A. Barber (Count 12); and declaratory judgment (Count 13). (Id. , ¶¶ 85–186, PageID #13–27.)

Plaintiff invokes the Court's diversity jurisdiction, asserting she and Defendants are citizens of different states and that the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Id. , ¶ 9, PageID #3.) On those points, there is no dispute. Instead, the dispute at hand turns on whether an exception to the exercise of the Court's diversity jurisdiction forecloses Plaintiff's claims from proceeding in federal court.

JURISDICTION

Under Rule 12(b)(1), the standard of review "depends on whether the defendant makes a factual or facial challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction." Solis v. Emery Fed. Credit Union , 459 F. Supp. 3d 981, 986–87 (S.D. Ohio 2020) (citing Gentek Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co. , 491 F.3d 320, 330 (6th Cir. 2007) ). Unlike a factual attack, which requires the district court to analyze conflicting evidence to determine if jurisdiction exists, a facial attack "challenges the jurisdictional sufficiency of the complaint given those facts." Id. at 987 (citing Ohio Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. United States , 922 F.2d 320, 325 (6th Cir. 1990) ). "When reviewing a facial attack, a district court takes the allegations in the complaint as true, similar to the approach employed in reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss." Id. (citation omitted). Defendants lodge a facial attack here, challenging Plaintiff's standing by taking her claims at face value and as true for present purposes, not by challenging their factual predicate. Therefore, the Court accepts the facts Plaintiff pleads as true in determining whether it has jurisdiction over this dispute.

ANALYSIS

The parties disagree whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. Defendants argue that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring her claims and that the probate exception bars the Court from exercising diversity jurisdiction. As to standing, Plaintiff maintains she need not have already established paternity in State court to claim the rights and remedies she seeks in federal court. (ECF No. 25, PageID #260–64.) As to the probate exception, she argues the Court has jurisdiction because (1) she is not challenging the validity of Albert's will and is not asking the Court to exercise in rem jurisdiction over any property presently in the custody of the probate court; (2) the Court may, she argues, disgorge Defendants of property obtained through wrongful possession of bequeathed property; (3) her claims arise out of the mishandling of assets and transactions that occurred outside of probate proceedings; and (4) Albert's estate has been closed for two decades, and Defendants now privately own his assets, which are outside the probate court's custody. (ECF No. 20, PageID #206–08.)

As more fully explained below, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction for several reasons: (1) Plaintiff lacks standing to recover from Defendants; (2) Plaintiff's claims do not concern inter vivos transfers excluded from the probate exception; (3) the labeling of Plaintiff's claims as in personam does not allow her to evade the probate exception; (4) Plaintiff's claims amount to an argument that Albert's estate was mishandled, which is an issue for the probate court; and (5) Plaintiff's claim for unauthorized practice of law depends on a determination within the sole jurisdiction of the Ohio Supreme Court.

I. Standing

"[T]o have the Court decide the merits of the dispute," a plaintiff must have standing. Warth v. Seldin , 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). Standing presents a "threshold determinant[ ] of the propriety of judicial intervention." Id. at 517–18, 95 S.Ct. 2197. Without proper standing, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the case. Langfan v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. , 529 F. App'x 460, 463 (6th Cir. 2013). "[A]t an irreducible minimum, Article III requires the party who invokes the court's authority to show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant" and that "the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision." Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist. , 475 U.S. 534, 542, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986) (cleaned up); see also Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 792, 797, 209 L.Ed.2d 94 (2021). To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that she suffered "an invasion of a legally protected interest" that is "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).

I.A. Standing Without Establishing Paternity

Defendants challenge Plaintiff's standing on the grounds that she is not a named beneficiary to Albert's will and cannot demonstrate she was entitled to inherit from him or invalidate his will in federal court. (ECF No. 24, Page #247–50.) In response, Plaintiff argues that she has standing because no paternity action is required to adjudicate her claims. (ECF No. 25, PageID #260.) But Plaintiff's claims depend on her alleged right to inherit from Albert, either by invalidating the probated will or through intestacy as Albert's...