Davis v. Drake
| Decision Date | 18 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:14 CV 113 |
| Parties | Anette Davis, Executor of the Estate of Peter W. Davis, deceased, Plaintiff, v. Mary Ann Drake, et. al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
The parties in this case have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate to conduct all proceedings and enter final judgment in this Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) case as set forth in 29 U.S.C. §1001, et. seq. The Complaint includes state law claims for unjust enrichment, the imposition of a constructive trust, declaratory judgment, breach of contract, conversion, and injunctive relief (Docket No. 1). The Court has jurisdiction over ERISA cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and over the pendent state law claims under § 1367(a). Pending before this Court are Plaintiff Anette Davis' ("Plaintiff") Motion For Summary Judgment With Memorandum In Support (Docket No. 49), Defendant Mary Ann Drake's ("Defendant") Opposition to Motion For Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket No. 63), Plaintiff's Reply (Docket No. 69), and Defendant's Reply (Docket No. 70).
Peter W. Davis ("Decedent" or "Mr. Davis") worked as an hourly employee at General Motors' (GM) Toledo Hydramatic Plant until his retirement in 2007 (Docket No. 49, p. 2 of 10). As part of Mr. Davis' employment with GM, he was entitled to certain collectively bargained benefits during his retirement under a Life and Disability Benefits Program for Hourly Employees, which consisted of a life benefit insured by MetLife (a welfare benefit), and a Personal Savings Plan (a pension plan), under ERISA (). On December 26, 1989, Mr. Davis married Defendant Drake (Docket No. 49, p. 2 of 10). At some point after the marriage, Mr. Davis filed a written designation with MetLife and GM naming Defendant Drake the sole beneficiary of the Policy and Plan upon his death (Docket No. 50, p. 1 of 7; Docket No. 14, Attachment 3).
On July 11, 1995, the marriage between Mr. Davis and Defendant Drake ended by a Final Judgment Entry of Divorce filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, Ohio, Domestic Relations Division (Docket No. 1, Attachment 1). Under the terms of the Final Judgment Entry of Divorce, Mr. Davis was awarded right, title and interest in his pension and IRA accounts without claim by Defendant Davis (Docket No. 1, Attachment 1, p. 14 of 15). The divorce judgment also awarded both Mr. Davis and Defendant Drake their separate and individual savings accounts in their respective names without claim by the other (Docket No. 1, Attachment 1, p. 15 of 15).
On December 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint For Declaratory Judgment, Damages, and Injunctive Relief against Defendants Mary Ann Drake, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife"), and General Motors ("GM") in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, asserting state law claims and requesting injunctive relief, related to employee benefits offered by GM to Peter W. Davis (Docket No. 1, Attachment 1;Docket No. 13).
A Joint Notice of Removal was filed on January 17, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, removing the case from the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas to federal court on grounds that the complaint included ERISA claims and benefits governed by federal law (Docket No. 1).
On February 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion For Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support, requesting the United States District Court to grant a temporary restraining order against all defendants prohibiting them from disbursing or transferring any portion of the benefits in dispute to Defendant Drake (Docket No. 6).
A Pretrial Conference concerning Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction was held on February 6, 2014, in which Senior U.S. District Judge James G. Carr presided and ordered: (1) Defendants MetLife and GM to pay the funds at issue in this case into the Court's Escrow Fund; and (2) on notice of compliance with the Order, the defendants GM and MetLife would be dismissed, with prejudice (Docket No. 11; Docket No. 8).
On February 7, 2014, Defendant Mary Ann Drake filed her Answer, generally denying Plaintiff's claims and raising affirmative defenses including failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the equitable doctrines of waiver, estoppel and laches (Docket No. 9). Defendant also asserted a counterclaim against Plaintiff arguing that she is entitled to the full payment of the benefits as the named beneficiary (Docket No. 9, p. 3 of 4).
On February 14, 2014, Defendant GM filed its Answer to Plaintiff's complaint generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses under ERISA (Docket No. 13).
On February 19, 2014, Defendant MetLife deposited $45,590.11 with the Court pursuant to the Court's prior Order dated February 6, 2014 (Docket Sheet, 2/19/14). Defendant GM on the other hand, filed a Motionfor Relief from the Court's Order of February 6, 2014, arguing that the Order contradicts ERISA's strict statutory anti-alienation rule, which obligates GM to pay the benefits to Mr. Davis' designated beneficiary, Defendant Drake (Docket No. 14; Docket No. 14, Attachment 1).
On February 20, 2014, Defendant MetLife, filed a Notice of Deposit With Proposed Stipulated Order of Dismissal, notifying the Court that it deposited, with the Registry of Court, $45,473 in Plan Benefits plus $117.11 in interest payable under the GM Life and Disability Plan pursuant to the Court's prior order and requesting that it be dismissed with prejudice from this case (Docket No. 16).
On February 25, 2014, Judge Carr entered an Order on Defendant GM's Motion For Relief from Order: (1) vacating the Court's February 6, 2014 Order; (2) directing GM to pay the pension plan benefits under the GM plan to the designated beneficiary; (3) ordering Defendant Drake to follow the Plan's procedures and requirements necessary to allow processing and distribution of the Plan benefits; and (4) dismissing with prejudice, all claims against Defendant MetLife in light of their payment into the Court's registery (Docket No. 17).
On February 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Answer to Defendant Drake's counterclaims generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses (Docket No. 18). Plaintiff Davis and Defendant Drake also filed a Stipulated Judgment Entry For Supplemental Preliminary Injunction, on February 26, 2014, agreeing that upon receipt of the benefits from GM, Defendant Drake would give those funds to her counsel for deposit into his IOLTA account until further Order of the Court or consent of Plaintiff by her counsel (Docket No. 19). Judge Carr granted the parties' stipulation on June 12, 2014 (Docket No. 24).
On July 3, 2014, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate to conduct all proceedings and enter final judgment in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and FED. R. CIV. P. 73 (Docket Sheet, 7/3/2014).
On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion For Summary Judgment With Memorandum In Support (Docket No. 49), a Declaration of Anette Davis, Mr. Davis' form designating his plan beneficiary and Mr. Davis' will from April 2013 (Docket No. 50). Defendant Drake filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on October 20, 2014 (Docket No. 63). Plaintiff filed a Reply on November 10, 2014 (Docket No. 69) and Defendant filed a Reply on November 20, 2014 (Docket No. 70).
Plaintiff asserts that she is entitled to summary judgment on the unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and declaratory judgment claims, arguing that: (1) the disposition of Mr. Davis' plan benefits are not preempted by ERISA; (2) under Ohio law, Defendant's retention of the benefits constitutes unjust enrichment; (3) Plaintiff is entitled to the remedy of a constructive trust under Ohio law; and (4) Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory judgment that Defendant waived all claims to the benefits (Docket No. 49).
Defendant disagrees, contending that: (1) ERISA pre-empts the waiver contained in the Final Judgment Entry of Divorce and that the ERISA plan documents must control the disposition of benefits; (2) the waiver contained in the Final Judgment Entry of Divorce was superceded by Defendant and Mr. Davis' subsequent relationship; (3) Plaintiff is unable to maintain a claim for unjust enrichment because the estate has conferred no benefit upon Defendant; (4) constructive trusts are a remedy for unjust enrichment not an independent cause of action; and (5) Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on all Plaintiff's claims (Docket No. 63).
The standard of review applicable to motions for summary judgment is established by Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 56 and the associated case law. Miller v. Transfreight, LLC, 2013 WL 4039033, at *1 (S.D. Ohio 2013). Summary judgment is appropriate where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FED R. CIV. P. 56(c) (West 2014). Alternatively, summary judgment is denied "if there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Miller, 2013 WL 4039033, at *1 (citing Hancock v. Dodson, 958 F.2d 1367, 1374 (6th Cir. 1992)(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986)). Thus, summary judgment must be entered "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at...
To continue reading
Request your trial