Voss v. Voss
| Docket Number | Civil Case No. 21-12594 |
| Decision Date | 16 August 2022 |
| Citation | 621 F.Supp.3d 816 |
| Parties | Wesley Raymond VOSS, Plaintiff, v. Ashley VOSS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Jamie R. Ryke, Thav & Associates P.L.L.C., Southfield, MI, for Plaintiff.
Jessica Schulze, Schulze Law & Consulting, PLLC, Bloomfield Hills, MI, Justin Morgan, JBM Law PLLC, New Haven, MI, for Defendant.
On November 4, 2021, State Farm Life Insurance Company filed a complaint for interpleader with this Court after Wesley Voss ("Plaintiff") and Ashley Voss ("Defendant") submitted competing requests to the company for the proceeds of Shirley Voss's life insurance policy after she passed away. (ECF No. 1.) On January 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a crossclaim arguing that Defendant exerted undue influence on Shirley Voss, prompting her to change her beneficiary from Plaintiff to Defendant. (See ECF Nos. 7, 15-9.) As such, Plaintiff requests this Court to declare that the beneficiary change to Defendant was invalid and that Plaintiff is entitled to the insurance proceeds.
Presently before this Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's crossclaim due to lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (2), or in the alternative abstain from exercising jurisdiction. (ECF No. 15.) The motion has been fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) For the reasons that follow, this Court is denying Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. "Unlike state trial courts, they do not have general jurisdiction to review questions of federal and state law, but only the authority to decide cases that the Constitution and Congress have empowered them to resolve." Ohio ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 549 F.3d 468, 474 (6th Cir. 2008). One of the bases for federal jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), Congress has empowered federal courts to hear cases in which the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
When a party to a case in federal court feels that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows that party to challenge the jurisdiction. Motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 12(b)(1) fall into one of two categories: a facial attack or a factual attack. United States v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 1994). A facial attack on subject matter jurisdiction challenges whether a party's assertion of subject matter jurisdiction in the complaint is proper. Id. () In cases of a facial attack, the trial court must take the allegations in the complaint as true. Id. In contrast, a factual attack challenges the factual existence of subject matter jurisdiction, regardless of whether the plaintiff correctly pled jurisdiction in the complaint. A trial court need not presume the truthfulness of the factual allegations in these cases, and it may weigh the evidence to determine the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Id.; see also RMI Titanium Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78 F.3d 1125, 1134 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977)) ( that a court is free to weigh evidence to "satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case" when subject matter jurisdiction is challenged by a factual attack). When challenged, the burden of proof for establishing subject matter jurisdiction lies with the plaintiff. Moir v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, 895 F.2d 266, 269 (6th Cir. 1990) (citing Rogers v. Stratton Indus., Inc., 798 F.2d 913, 915 (6th Cir. 1986)).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) provides for dismissal when a court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant. The plaintiff has the burden of establishing the Court's jurisdiction over a defendant. See Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454, 1458 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936)). To defeat a defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. See id. A prima facie showing requires the plaintiff to "demonstrate facts which support a finding of jurisdiction . . . ." Welsh v. Gibbs, 631 F.2d 436, 438 (6th Cir. 1980) (quoting Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 (9th Cir. 1977)).
Plaintiff is the brother of the decedent, Shirley Voss. (Compl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 2.) After the death of Shirley's father in 2012, Plaintiff began taking care of Shirley by helping her with daily tasks. (ECF No. 15-9 at Pg ID 238.) Ultimately, Shirley moved in with Plaintiff at his home in Michigan and eventually moved with him when he retired to Florida. (Id., Pg ID 238-39.) In 2019, Shirley amended her life insurance policy to make Plaintiff the sole beneficiary. (Compl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 2.)
In July of 2021, Shirley moved back to Michigan to live with Defendant, who is her niece. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 17, Pg ID 3; ECF No. 15-9 at Pg ID 239.) While living with Defendant, Shirley began making various estate changes a week and a half before her death, such as executing a formal codicil to omit her nephew Wesley Voss Jr. from serving as a fiduciary to the administration of her probate estate and amending her trust to omit him from serving as a fiduciary or receiving distribution from the trust. (See ECF Nos. 15-4, 15-5.) Shirley reaffirmed Defendant as her personal representative and as her successor trustee. (See ECF No. 15 at Pg ID 199-200; ECF No. 15-5 at Pg ID 219-20.) In addition, on September 10, 2021, Shirley executed another handwritten codicil naming Defendant and seven others as the beneficiaries of her life insurance proceeds. (ECF No. 15 at Pg ID 200; ECF No. 15-7 at Pg ID 227-28.) Thereafter, on September 14, 2021, Shirley signed and submitted a formal change of beneficiary form to State Farm assigning Defendant alone as the beneficiary of the proceeds. (Compl. ¶ 13, ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 3; ECF No. 1-4 at Pg ID 42-45.) Shirley passed away six days later, on September 20, 2021. (Compl. ¶ 14, ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 3; ECF No. 1-5 at Pg ID 47.)
After her death, Plaintiff and Defendant contacted State Farm claiming entitlement to the life insurance proceeds owed under her policy, which totals $78,794.82. (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 16, ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 3.) Unable to determine how to distribute the proceeds, State Farm filed the complaint for interpleader in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22, so that Plaintiff and Defendant could litigate their respective claims between themselves. (Id., Pg ID 5.) Subsequently, the Court dismissed State Farm from the action after State Farm deposited the funds with the Clerk of Court, pending resolution of the dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant. (ECF No. 21 at Pg ID 271.)
Defendant argues that this Court lacks both subject matter and personal jurisdiction under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (2). (ECF No. 15 at Pg ID 190.) With respect to subject matter jurisdiction, Defendant states that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking because this case falls under the probate exception to federal jurisdiction. (Id., Pg ID 190-91.) To support her point, Defendant notes that Shirley not only sent a formal beneficiary change form to State Farm but also executed a handwritten codicil that directs the distribution of life insurance proceeds. (Id., Pg ID 201.) Because state probate courts have exclusive jurisdiction over determining the validity of a will and distribution of assets and because a codicil is involved here, Defendant argues that the probate exception applies. (Id., Pg ID 202.)
Alternatively, Defendant contends that if this Court decides on the issue of undue influence, such a determination could potentially encompass other estate changes Shirley made before her death, such as the formal codicil to her will and the amendment to her trust that reaffirmed Defendant as personal representative and successor trustee. If these other estate changes are contested based on undue influence in state probate court, inconsistent determinations may result. Thus, Defendant argues that this Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction. (Id.; ECF No. 18 at Pg ID 262.) Concerning personal jurisdiction, Defendant failed to address why personal jurisdiction is lacking. (See ECF Nos. 15, 18.) In the response brief, Plaintiff did not address the issue of personal jurisdiction. (See ECF No. 17.) As such, the Court will consider this argument waived by Defendant.
In response, Plaintiff asserts that life insurance proceeds are not an estate asset and do not fall under the probate exception. (ECF No. 17 at Pg ID 248.) Instead, he states that the probate exception to federal jurisdiction applies only when a federal court is asked by a party to probate a will, annul a will, administer an estate, or dispose of property in the jurisdiction of a state probate court. (Id., Pg ID 249) (citing Chevalier v. Estate of Barnhart, 803 F.3d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 2015).) Plaintiff makes clear that he does not, and will not, contest any of Shirley's wills or trusts. He is solely contesting the validity of the change of beneficiary to Defendant. Given that the life insurance policy is outside of the realm of Shirley's estate or probate and that the wills or trust are uncontested by Plaintiff, he argues that the probate exception is inapplicable. (Id., Pg ID 249-50.)
In reply to Plaintiff's response, Defendant states that the probate court will be "forced" to decide the issue of undue influence over...
To continue reading
Request your trial