The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-20-15 (2) ESTATE OF GGORGF, W. HOWARD ) IN THF, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Deccased ) CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ) o � � � ) N0.21-13-1143 � o "' m � ) ; � � � � � �> a ORPHANS' COURTDIVISIOi�° ;'_ ,`_' ��+ �� o � ., n ' c� AMERICAN EOUITY'S PETITION � � � -.� .,� '� FOR A RULE TO SERVE THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE�� : , � - '� 0 �--' - m American Equity Invesimeut Life Insurance Compa�y ("American F,quitj�") respectl�JJyo U petitions this Honorable Court ro issue a Rule to Serve the Interest of Justice, pursuant to Local Rule 206.I(a). At a hearing scheduled for May 8, 2015, this Cou�t may be asked ro consider issues that are before Ihe United States District Court for the Middle District of Pen�sylvania in a pendi�g interpleader action. To avoid conflicts, and [o permit the issues which are properly before the fede�al court to be decided by that court, American Equity is filing this Petition and asking this Court, at and after the May 8, 2015 liearing, ro limit its consideration of issues that involvc American Equity. In suppoR of this Petition, Ame�ican Equity avers as follows: 1. Decedent George W. I3oward cxeeuted the following documents �egarding his Estate and certain Annuity Contracts which he made with American F,quity: a. On or about September 17, 2004, a change of beneficiary form regarding American Equity AnnuiTy Contraet No. 179442 (the "2004 Form"), which named Kobert Howard as Deeedent's continge�t benefieiary for that Annuiry Contcact; b. On o� about December 28, 2007, a cha�ge of beneficiary form reguding Americao Equity Amiuity Conhacl No. 180110 (the "2007 Form"), which named Robert and Dennis Howard as DecedcnYs contingent beneficiarics for Ihat Annuity Contract; c. On November 24, 2009, a Last Will and Testament (the "2009 WiIP') which benefitted his sons, Robert Howard and Dennis Howard; 1 � d. On April 24, 2012, a subsequent Iast Will and Testwneot (thc "2012 Wil]") which benefitted his nephew-in-law, Robcrt Surfield; and e. On April 23, 2013, a Be�eficiary Claim Form (the "2013 Claim Foan") � which stated that in the event of his death, [he Death Proceeds associated with Americau EquiTy Annuity Co�tract Nos. 179442 and 180110 should be paid to RobeR Surfield. 2. Decedent dicd testate on October 15, 2013. 3. On October 28, 2013, Robert Howard commenced this actiou by tiling an informal Caveat to the 2012 Will and alleging that the 2009 Will was Decede�Ps t�ue W ill. 4. �Phe above-captioned action thus involvcs a dispute between Robert SurFeld, aod Robert Ilowa�d (rogether with his brother Dennis Howazd), rcgarding whether the 2012 Will should be probeted as Decedent's truc Last Will and Testament. 5. On January 7, 2015, American Equiry filed a Complaint fo� Interpleadcr in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania at Case No. 1:15-cv-00043- YK-KM (the "Intcrpleade� Actiod'), asking that cour[ [o resolve a dispute among the I-lowurd brothers and Robert Surfield with respect to whether the Death Proceeds fo� Annuity Conhact Nos. 179442 and 180110 should be distcibuted: i) ro Robert Surfield, pu�suant to the 2013 Claim Form; or ii) to Robert and Dennis Howard, pursuant to the 2004 and 2007 Forms. See Case No. L 15-cv-00043-YK-KM at ECF No. 1 (Interpleader Complaint) at ¶¶ 19, 24, 25, 30; ECF Nos. I- 5 and I-6(the 2004 and 2007 Forms); and ECF No. 1-7 (the 2013 Claim Form). 6. On Pebruary 9,2015, this Court issued an Order which stated that A hearing to decide the objections by Robert Howard and Dennis Howazd [o the Probate of the [2012� Will of George W. Howard and to the Ame�ica� Annuity Beneficiary shall be held on Friday, May S, 2015, at 10:00 arn in Courtroom No. 2 of lhe Cumbedand County Courthouse, Carlisle, Ycnnsylvania. 2 7. O� March 4, 2015, the federal court issaed an Ocder in the Interpleader Action which directed American Equity to pay funds into that court and to move for summary judgment. 8. On Mazch 26, 2015, America� Equity paid $79,55820 to thc federal court in the Interpleader Action a�d moved that court tq inter alia: i) discharge American Equity from any liability with �espect ro the Death Proceeds for Annuity Contract Nos. 179442 a�d 180110; and ii) enjoin Robert and Dennis Iioward, and Robert Surfield, from bringi�g their claims ro those Death Proceeds in any other Forum, including this Court. 9. Thece is a potential conflict betwecn this Court's decisions in [his action, and the federal court's decision in the Interpleader Action. Spccifically, if this Court were to decide, following its May 8, 2015 heazing, that a particular party is entitled to the Death Proceeds for Annuity Contract Nos. 179442 and 180110, that decision could conllict with the federal eourt's decision in the Interplcader Action. It could also expose Ameriean Equity to double jeopardy, in that American Gquity might be required by this Cuurt to pay funds to a paRicular party, when American Equity has al�eady paid that same sum to the Cederal court in the Interpleader Action. ]0. It is well estxblishcd that, in cases which involve a courPs control of assets or other propedy, the couR which first takes control of the contested asset or property has jurisdictio� to which the second court must yicld: 'Co avoid unseemly and disastcous conflicts in the administration of our dual judieial system ... the principle, applicable to both federal and state couris, is esteblished that the court tirst assuming jurisdiction over the property may maintain and exercise that jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other. Penn General Casualty Co. v. Pennsy[vania, 294 U.S. 189, 195 (1935).� � The rule applies to "suits [which] are in rem or quasi in rem, requiring lha[ [he court or its officer have poss'ession or comrol of Ihe property which is the subject of the suit in urder ro pmceed wi[h the cause and m grant [he relief sough[." 294 U.S.at 195. The federal court Inleryleader Action at issue here isjust such a s�it. The separate but relared rule, that inlcrpleader ac[ions are no� "quasi-in-rem actions for purposes of personnl jurisdlcfinn," is no[ ro [he contary. WiLsun v. Can. Lije Assur. Co., No. 4:08-CV-1258, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEX1S 16714, at "33-34 n.l I (M.D. Pa. Mar. 3,2009) (emphesis added)(citing N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Dunlevy, 241 3 l I. Because the federal cour[ has taken control over the Death Proceeds associated with Amexican Equity Annuity Contract Nos. 179442 and 18011Q Penn Generol requires this Court to defec ro the fede�al eourt regarding the disposition of those funds. 12. Moreove�, this Orphans' CouR action is a will contest, not a dispute ovec the Annuity Co�tracts. Neither Robert Howard noc RobeR Surfield has asked this Court to dete�mine the proper beneficiazy of the Death Proceeds associated with Amecican Equity Annuity Contcact Nos. 179442 and 180110. The fact that American EqniTy was mentioned for the first time in this case sua sponte, in this CourPs Febrnary 9, 2015 Order, suggests that this CouR should defer to thc federal couRs determination of [he proper beneficiary of American Fquity Annuity Contract Nos. 179442 and 180110. 13. For all of these reasons, this Court should limit its consideration of issues that involve Ameiican Equity, so that the issues which are propedy before the fedecal court in the Interpleader Action may be decided by that court. To do this, this Court should grant the attached proposed draft Order at Yaragraph 1. 14. The paRies to this will contest — Robert Surfield and Robert Howazd — disagcee over whether this Court should address thc limited question of whether Decedent Geo�ge W. Howard had capacity to execu[e the 2013 Claim Form. If this Court wishes to address that questioq it should grant the attached proposed drafr Order at Paragraph 2. if this CouR prefers to Icavc that issue for resolution by the fedecal court, Ihen it should strike or modify Paragraph 2 of the attaehed proposed drafr Order. U.S. 518, 521 (191�(sla[i�g[hat Mrs. Duolevy's suit was not barred by a related intetpleader action which named her as a claimant, because she had m[ been served with, or appeareA iq [hat actioq and the in[e�pleader court's mere control of funds did mt give that court personal jurisdiction over her cleims to [hose funds)). The Howard brothers end Surfield have receiveA or waived service end appeared in the Interpleader Actioq so the question of whether the Interpleeder Action would create personal jurisdic[ion over them is not a[issue here. 4 a. Robert Surfield contends thnt ihis Court may address whether Decedent had capacity to execute the 2013 Claim Form, as that question is similar to the questio� of whether Dccedent had capaciry to execute thc 2012 Will, and will be decided bascd o� similar evidence, such that judiciaL economy will be promoted if this Court takes testimony and evidence on both questions. Moreover, Robert Surfield contends that evcn if this Court determines that Uecedent had capaciry to execute the 2013 Claim Form, Robert Howard will still be able to challengc that Claim Form in fede�a] court, for reasons he set forth in a Motion in the Interyleader Action. See Case No. 1:15-cv-00043-YK-KM at F.CF Nos. 1 Q 11. Accordingly, Roberc Su�cld consents to both¶ 1 and¶2 of the attached draft Order. b. Robcrt Howa�d contends that this Court should not decide whether Uecedent had capacity to execute the 2013 Claim Form, for the reasons set fo�th in his Motion to Reconsidcr Court Order, which he filed on Febmacy 24, 2015. Thus, while Robert Howacd consents lo¶ 1 of the attached drafi Order, he opposes¶ 2 of the attached drafr Order. c. American F.quity takes no position on whether this CouR can or should decide the limited question of whether Deeedent had capaciry to execute the 2013 Claim Porm. Amecican Equity simply seeks to ensure that this CouR does not take any additional action, over and above any decision on thal limitcd question, that could interfere with the federal court's dispositio� of the Interpleader Ac[ion or place American 6quity in double jeopacdy. Thus, Ameriean EquiTy petitions the Court to enter ¶ 1 of the attached dcafl O�der, but it takes no position as to whether the Court should enter, strike, or modify¶2 of the attached drafr Order. 15. Porsuant to Local Rule 2082(d), American Equity states that it provided a eopy of this Petition for a Rule to Serve the In[erest of Justice to Roberl Howard and Robert Surfield? - American Equity did not provide a mpy to Dennis Howerd, because he has stated that he is allowing his bmther Robert Howard to prosecute whalever claims he has on his behalf. See Interpleader Action a[ Case I:I S-cv-00043-YK-KM,EC�No.20.1 (De<leration of Dennis Howacd),at¶6. 5 RobeR Surfield exp�essed his co�sent to American Gquity's Petition for a Rule to Scrve the Interest of Justice and to Yaragraphs l and 2 of the attached proposed draft Ordec Robert Howard expressed his consent to American Equity's Petition for a RuLe to Serve thc I�terest of Justice and to Paragraph I, but no[ Pazagraph 2, of the attached proposed draft Order. WHEREFORB, American EquiTy �espectfully pxays that this Honorable Court might grant this Petition fo� a Rule to Serve the Inte�est of Justice by entering the Oxde� bcing provided here�aith pucsuant to Local Rule 208.3(a)(3). Dated: April 17, 2015 RespcetfuLly submitted, Picad' Sncath, Miller, & Nor[on, P.C. He Sneath (PA405 ) Jaso pak (PA89077) 444 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1105 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (472) 288-4000 Counsel far American Equity 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 17, 20li, a truc and correct copy of the foregoing PET1TlON FOR A RULE TO SERVE TIIE INTEREST OF JUSTICE was served upon all parties of record, or thci� counsel, via First-Class United States Mail, postage pcepaid, addressed as follows: Mr. Dennis Howard Robert J. Howard 6016 Snowdens Run Ro�d 942 Mountain Meadow Road EldersburgMD 2(784 Libby, MT 59923 Mamus A. McK�ight, III,Esquire Icwin &McKnight, P.C. 60 West Pomfret Sheet Carlislc, PA 17013-3222 (Counsel far Robert Svrjield) PICADIO SNEATII MILLER & NORTON C `� Jason . p k 7