Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Sun Coast Tr. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 8:18-cv-1401-23AAS |
| Parties | JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. SUN COAST TRUST COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Jackson National Life Insurance Company (Jackson) moves to dismiss Eloy Aguirre's counterclaim and requests an order of interpleader, to deposit funds into the court's registry, and for attorney's fees and costs. (Docs. 24, 25).
This action seeks to determine the beneficiary of a single premium deferred annuity, policy number 0032722400, issued by Jackson to Nikki G. Heisler on September 7, 1990. (Doc. 15, ¶¶ 6-7). Originally, Ms. Heisler designated her husband, Kenneth W. Heisler, as the sole beneficiary of the policy proceeds. (Doc. 15, ¶ 10).
To change beneficiaries, the policy requires:
While this Policy is in force, the Owner may change the Beneficiary, unless otherwise provided by endorsement. This may be done by filing at the Home Office of theCompany an acceptable written request. Such change will be subject to any existing assignment of this Policy and will take effect on the date the notice was signed. Any proceeds paid before a change of Beneficiary is recorded will not be subject to the change.
(Doc. 15-1, p. 3). After Mr. Heisler passed away, Ms. Heisler provided Jackson with an annuity service request form designating her grandson Christopher K. Kallimanis and her son Christ J. Kallimanis as revocable beneficiaries under the policy. (Doc. 15, ¶ 13).
On June 21, 2012, Ms. Heisler sent Jackson a notarized annuity service request form designating Mr. Aguirre as the sole irrevocable beneficiary of the policy proceeds.2 (Doc. 15-2). The irrevocable beneficiary designation states:
[T]he named irrevocable beneficiary obtains a vested interest in this Contract and must sign (along with the Owner) for any future changes to, surrender of, withdrawals from, or transfer of this annuity Contract as requested by the Owner, including a change of the named irrevocable beneficiary.
(Doc. 1-5). On June 28, 2012, Jackson sent a letter to Ms. Heisler acknowledging receipt of Ms. Heisler's annuity service request form. (Doc. 15-3). On July 13, 2012, Jackson sent another letter to Ms. Heisler advising her that Mr. Aguirre's signature was required on the form. (Doc. 15-4). Mr. Aguirre executed and returned the form to Jackson. (Doc. 15, ¶ 35).
On November 2, 2012, Ms. Heisler sent Jackson another annuity service request form, but this time designated the Nikki Heisler Living Trust as the sole beneficiary of the policy, with Sun Coast Trust Company, Inc. (Sun Coast) as trustee. (Doc. 1-4). On November 5, 2012, Jackson contacted Ms. Heisler to inform her Mr. Aguirre's signature was needed to make this change because he was the sole irrevocable beneficiary of the policy. (Doc. 15, ¶ 40).
On November 6, 2012, Ms. Heisler's financial advisor, Hendrickson & Hendrickson, Inc. n/k/a The Hendrickson Advisory Group, Inc. (Hendrickson), sent Jackson a letter stating Ms. Heisler's signature on the June 21, 2012 annuity service request form designating Mr. Aguirre as the sole irrevocable beneficiary of the policy was a forgery. (Doc. 1-5). Hendrickson instructed Jackson to change the beneficiary of the policy to the living trust and transfer $20,000.00 payments monthly to Ms. Heisler's checking account. (Id.). On November 19, 2012, Ms. Heisler allegedly signed an affidavit attesting she had not "written nor authorized" designating Mr. Aguirre as the sole irrevocable beneficiary of the policy, and that her signature on the June 21, 2012 annuity service request form was a forgery. (Doc. 1-6). Mr. Aguirre asserts Ms. Heisler's November 19, 2012 affidavit was itself a forgery. (Doc. 15, ¶ 42).
After receiving Hendrickson's written notice of a forgery, and Ms. Heisler's forgery affidavit, Jackson changed the policy beneficiary from Mr. Aguirre to Ms. Heisler's living trust and disbursed $20,000.00 to her checking account. (Id. at ¶¶ 44, 46). The living trust remained the sole beneficiary of the policy until Ms. Heislerpassed away nearly five years later, on January 5, 2018. Mr. Aguirre alleges he was never notified about any of the communications between Hendrickson and Jackson regarding the change in beneficiaries or the forgery allegations. (Id. ¶ 50). He also alleges Jackson never contacted him about the forgery allegations or any challenge to Ms. Heisler designating him the irrevocable beneficiary of the policy. (Id. ¶ 51).
The policy provides:
Upon receipt of due proof of the death of the Annuitant prior to the Maturity Date, the Company will pay to the Beneficiary, no later than two months after receipt of such proof, the Death Benefit Proceeds.
(Doc. 15-1, p. 3). After Ms. Heisler's January 2018 death, Mr. Aguirre contacted Jackson and requested payment of the policy proceeds to him as sole irrevocable beneficiary. (Doc. 15, ¶ 63).
On June 11, 2018, Jackson filed a complaint for interpleader against Mr. Aguirre and trustee Sun Coast for the court to resolve the competing claims for the policy proceeds. (Doc. 1). Sun Coast and Mr. Aguirre filed competing cross-claims (Docs. 8, 18), and Mr. Aguirre filed a counterclaim against Jackson (Doc. 15, pp. 6-17). Mr. Aguirre's counterclaim alleges causes of action against Jackson for breach of contract, tortious interference with an expectancy, and breach of fiduciary duty. (Id. at pp. 6-18).
Jackson seeks dismissal of Mr. Aguirre's counterclaim on three grounds. (Doc. 24). First, Jackson contends Mr. Aguirre's claim for damages related to Jackson's November 2012 disbursement of $20,000.00 in policy funds to Ms. Heisler's checkingaccount is barred by Florida law. (Id. at pp. 4-6). Next, Jackson argues Mr. Aguirre's counterclaim is subject to dismissal because the claims overlap with the claims in Jackson's interpleader complaint. (Id. at pp. 6-8). Finally, Jackson argues Mr. Aguirre's causes of action in its counterclaim are improperly pleaded. (Id. at pp. 8-15). Mr. Aguirre opposes the motion. (Doc. 32).
Jackson also moves for an order of interpleader to direct the subject policy proceeds be deposited into the court's registry, dismiss Jackson from this action, and award attorney's fees and costs incurred in filing this action. (Doc. 25). Mr. Aguirre agrees the policy proceeds should be deposited into the court's registry, but opposes Jackson's dismissal from this action and an award of attorney's fees and costs. (Doc. 33).
The court will address Jackson's motion for order of interpleader (Doc. 25) and Jackson's motion to dismiss Mr. Aguirre's counterclaim (Doc. 24), respectively.
Jackson seeks an order of interpleader discharging Jackson from this action, granting leave to deposit the policy proceeds into the court's registry, and awarding attorney's fees and costs. (Doc. 25, pp. 9-10). In response, Mr. Aguirre contends Jackson is not entitled to interpleader relief because it is not a disinterested stakeholder and Jackson did not timely bring this interpleader action. (Doc. 31, pp. 3-6). Mr. Aguirre also argues Jackson's attorney's fees and costs arose in theordinary course of business, so its request for fees and costs should be denied. (Id. at pp. 6-8).
Under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[p]ersons with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to interplead." Interpleader "allows a stakeholder to bring an action joining two or more adverse claimants to a single fund." John Alden Life Ins. Co. v. Vanlandingham, No. 5:04-CV-538-OC-10GRJ, 2006 WL 1529047, *4 (M.D. Fla. May 30, 2006) (citing In re Mandalay Shores Coop. Housing Ass'n, Inc., 21 F.3d 380, 383 (11th Cir. 1994) ().
There are two stages to an interpleader action. N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Snyder, No. 5:11-CV-618-Oc-34TBS, 2012 WL 1600157, *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2012) (internal citations omitted). "[T]he burden is on the party seeking interpleader to demonstrate that he is entitled to it," or, "that he has been or may be subjected to adverse claims." Ohio Nat. Life Assur. Corp. v. Langkau ex rel. Estate of Langkau, 353 F. App'x 244, 249 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Dunbar v. United States, 502 F.2d 506, 511 (5th Cir. 1974)).
"It is a generally accepted principle that a disinterested stakeholder filing an action in interpleader may be dismissed from the case, discharged from further liability, and, in the court's discretion, awarded attorneys' fees and costs." Southtrust Bank of Fla., N.A. v. Wilson, 971 F. Supp. 539, 542 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (quoting Kurland v. United States, 919 F. Supp. 419, 421 (M.D. Fla. 1996)) (emphasis added). Thus, a party seeking interpleader must be free from blame in causing the controversy, and where it is a wrongdoer, it is not disinterested and cannot receive relief by interpleader. See Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Hovis, 553 F.3d 258, 263 (3d Cir. 2009).
Mr. Aguirre contends Jackson is not a disinterested stakeholder because it changed policy beneficiaries from Mr. Aguirre as a sole irrevocable beneficiary to Ms. Heisler's living trust without Mr. Aguirre's knowledge or consent. (Doc. 31, pp. 3-4). Jackson then made a $20,000.00 policy disbursement to the living trust without Mr. Aguirre's knowledge or consent. (Id.). In addition, Mr. Aguirre alleges Jackson is not a disinterested stakeholder because it knew about the existence of competing...
To continue reading
Request your trial