Muller-Paisner v. Tiaa
Citation | 446 F.Supp.2d 221 |
Decision Date | 14 August 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 03 Civ. 6265(DAB).,03 Civ. 6265(DAB). |
Parties | Vera MULLER-PAISNER, as Executrix of the Estate of Mary Engel, deceased, Plaintiff, v. TIAA, TIAACREF Enterprises, Inc., Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, and College Retirement Equities Fund, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Max Wild, Law Offices of Max Wild, Goshen, NY, for plaintiff.
Vera Muller-Paisner ("Plaintiff") brings suit against TIAA, TIAA-CREF Enterprises, Inc., Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, and College Retirement Equities Fund, collectively known as TIAA-CREF ("TIAA" or "Defendants"). The suit arises out of Defendants' allegedly fraudulent sale of an annuity to Decedent Mary Engel ("Decedent"), which caused substantial losses to Decedent's estate. Plaintiff Executrix of Decedent's estate, who is seeking punitive damages and attorney's fees, asserts the following claims against Defendants: (1) common law fraud; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) negligence; and (4) securities fraud. Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) for failure to state a claim and for failure to plead fraud with particularity. Defendants also move to strike Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages and attorney's fees.
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Decedent Mary Engel was a 70-year old college professor who had accumulated approximately $1,342,555 in retirement benefits after 30 years of teaching. (Compl.¶¶ 8, 9.) She died of emphysema on March 10, 2001, approximately six months after she retired. (Compl.¶ 1, 8). Plaintiff Vera Muller-Paisner is the executrix of Decedent's estate. (Compl. at 1.) Defendants, collectively known as TIAA-CREF, are a group of corporations, all of which exist and are organized pursuant to the laws of the State of New York, with a principal place of business in New York. (Compl.¶ 2.) Defendants provide the principal retirement system for the nation's education and research communities, serving approximately 2.5 million people, including Decedent Engel. (Compl.¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges that Decedent Engel was defrauded when she was induced to purchase a life annuity from Defendants because Defendants misrepresented the fact that the annuity had a guaranteed period and that Decedent would be able to name a beneficiary, and they also failed to inform her of other available retirement options that might have made more sense financially.
According to Plaintiff, Defendants represent that they have an infrastructure "to help people identify the resources that best fit their needs as they pass from one period of life to another." (Compl.¶ 15.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants held themselves out as being willing to and capable of providing investment advice and guidance to the plan participants, and to provide such investment advice, they have established "counseling centers," which participants can call to obtain investment advice and guidance. (Compl.¶ 17.)
On September 27, 1999, Mary Engel executed her last will and testament, which provided for the distribution of her assets at the time of her death, including $50,000 to a friend she later married, and also directed the establishment of a trust to pay $4,000 per month to Plaintiff for life, with the remainder to Decedent's nephew, if he survived Plaintiff, or else to a nonprofit organization. (Compl.¶ 10.) The trust, which was to be funded from Decedent's estate, would have required approximately $700,000. (Compl.¶ 10.) Decedent retired on or about September 1, 2000. At this time, Decedent also apparently was planning to purchase a house, which Decedent brought to Defendants' attention numerous times. (Compl.¶ 35.)
Before Decedent purchased the annuity, she obtained advice from Defendants regarding her retirement options: she wrote numerous letters to Defendants, and had at least six telephone conversations with different counselors. (Compl.¶ 33.) In a letter, dated February 8, 2000, Decedent wrote to Defendants and stated, (Defs.' Notice of Motion, Ex E.) On August 22, 2000, Decedent wrote a letter to Defendants in which she stated in part, (Defs.' Notice of Motion, Ex H.) Decedent enclosed with this August 21, 2000 letter completed forms labeled, "Authorization to Begin Retirement Income from Retirement Annuities or Group Retirement Annuities." (Defs.' Notice of Motion, Ex H.) On September 5, 2000, Decedent wrote a letter to Defendants in which she stated, "Confirming: annuitize 100% remaining TIAA-CREF accounts under standard method, 0 year survivorship." (Compl.¶ 37.) The September 5, 2000 letter, which complained of the treatment Decedent had received from the counselors, also stated, (Compl.¶ 37.)
On September 1, 2000, Decedent purchased the annuity in question. (Compl.¶ 11.) The annuity required the payment of nearly all of Decedent's moneys, which totaled approximately $1.2 million, and had no guaranteed refund or pay period. (Compl. at 1, ¶ 11.)
Defendants sent Decedent a booklet entitled, "Your Service Directory," which stated it was prepared for Mary S. Engel. (Compl.¶ 34.) Section I entitled "Summary of Your Annuity Payment Arrangements" states under "Income Option," (Compl.¶ 34.) According to Plaintiff, sections II and III of the booklet give the impression that after starting to receive annuity benefits, one could elect to change the annuity income sources and income stream and could change the beneficiary. (Compl.¶ 34.)
In a "Record of Conversation" dated August 22, 2000, one of the counselors stated in the "Remarks" section, (Defs.' Notice of Motion, Ex. F.) In a "Record of Conversation" dated August 30, 2000, one of the counselors stated in part, (Defs.' Notice of Motion, Ex. I; Pl.'s Mem. at 20, n. 4.) In a "Record of Conversation" dated August 31, 2000, one of the counselors stated in part, (Defs.' Notice of Motion, Ex. I; Pl.'s Mem. at 20, n. 4.)
In a memorandum to the file dated August 31, 2000, a counselor stated, "I spoke to . . . in counseling, who confirmed [Decedent's] retirement options . . . [I] asked that [she] send a ltr confirming her options . . .". (Compl.¶ 37.) Plaintiff claims in the Complaint, "In making such notes to defendants' files and causing Decedent to write such acknowledgments, said Counselors basically wanted to insulate themselves and defendants from legal action because they well recognized that they were causing or at least wrongfully allowing Decedent to make a grossly inappropriate and unsuitable investment and not discharging their legal and moral obligations to help Decedent avoid unsuitable investments and make appropriate choices." (Compl.¶ 39.)
At the time she purchased the annuity, Decedent was suffering from emphysema, which caused her to wheeze and cough virtually uncontrollably, to have difficulty breathing and speaking, and which made her difficult to understand. (Compl.¶ 8.) On August 21, 2000, one of the Defendants' counselors stated in a "Record of Conversation" form used to record telephone contacts with participants that Decedent was "difficult to understand." (Compl.¶ 27.) Plaintiff also claims that the several letters Decedent wrote to Defendants while she was considering her retirement options show Decedent's handwriting was weak and shaky, "strongly suggesting a serious health condition." (Compl.¶ 28.)
On March 10, 2001, Decedent passed away, after receiving six annuity payments. (Compl. at 1-2.) Her last will and testament was admitted to probate in the Court of Probate for the State of Connecticut. (Compl.¶ 1.) After Decedent's death, Plaintiff executrix and Engel's estate attorney requested information from Defendants to ascertain the details of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dzwonczyk v. Syracuse City Police Dep't
...in plaintiff's] possession or of which [the] plaintiff [ ] had knowledge and relied on in bringing suit." Muller-Paisner v. TIAA, 446 F.Supp.2d 221, 226-227 (S.D.N.Y.2006) ( citing Brass v. American Film Technologies, Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir.1993) (internal citations omitted)) ( rev......
-
Muller–Paisner v. Tiaa
...Deborah A. Batts, granted defendants motion to dismiss, dismissing plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. See Muller–Paisner v. TIAA, 446 F.Supp.2d 221 (S.D.N.Y.2006). In an unpublished decision issued on August 15, 2008, the Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district......
-
Hines v. City of Albany
...either in plaintiff[s'] possession or of which plaintiffs had knowledge and relied on in bringing suit." Muller-Paisner v. TIAA, 446 F.Supp.2d 221, 226-227 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (citing Brass v. American Film Technologies, Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir.1993) (internal citations omitted)) (emphas......
-
Malay v. City of Syracuse
...either in plaintiff[s'] possession or of which plaintiffs had knowledge and relied on in bringing suit." Muller-Paisner v. TIAA, 446 F.Supp.2d 221, 226-227 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (citing Brass v. American Film Technologies, Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir.1993) (internal citations omitted)) (rev'd ......