Ehrhart et al v. Hampton et al

Filing 4

ORDER Dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 5/14/2013. (cem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
JACK EHRHART,
DANIEL C. RUNGO, and
DAVID L. RUNGO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLES J. HAMPTON
Atty, its agents, services and or
employees, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:13-CV-1383-RWS

ORDER
This case was submitted to the Court for a frivolity determination
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. After reviewing the Complaint [3], the Court
concludes that the case is subject to dismissal due to lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
In the Complaint, the pro se Plaintiffs allege that the Executors of the
estates of Everett H. Ehrhart and Theresa L. Ehrhart (the “Testators”) failed to
pay Plaintiffs sums that they were due under the Wills of the Testators.
Plaintiff Jack F. Ehrhart is the adopted grandson of the Testators, and Plaintiffs

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Daniel C. Rungo and David L. Rungo are the biological sons of Plaintiff Jack F.
Ehrhart. Defendant John F. Ehrhart is Plaintiff Jack Ehrhart’s father and is a
Co-Executor of the estates. He survived both Testators.
Similar provisions in each of the Wills of the Testators provide for a
specific bequest to grandchildren as follows: “I give and bequeath the sum of
Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) to each of my grandchildren who shall
survive me.” Wills1, ¶ 2.3. Each Will also provides for a “Residuary Trust” for
the benefit of the surviving spouse of the Testator. Id., ¶ 4.1. Upon the death of
the surviving spouse, any portion of the residuary trust that remains is to be
distributed to the Testator’s living descendants, per stirpes. Id., ¶ 4.2(d). A
“Descendant’s Trust” is created for each descendant who receives a
distribution. Id. When a descendant reaches the age of 25 years, the trust of
that descendant terminates, and the assets of the trust are distributed to the
descendant, free and clear. Id., ¶ 5.2.
Theresa Ehrhart predeceased Everett Ehrhart, and her Will was filed for
probate on December 30, 2009. Compl., ¶ 3. John Ehrhart and Charles Ehrhart
were appointed Co-Executors. Id., ¶ 6. On November 2, 2011, the Will of

1

The Wills of each of the Testators are attached as Exhibits to the Complaint.
The provisions in issue in this case are identical in the two Wills.
2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Everett Ehrhart was filed for probate. Id., ¶ 4. John Ehrhart and Charles
Ehrhart were appointed Co-Executors of his estate, as well. Id., ¶ 6. According
to the provisions of the Wills, upon Theresa Ehrhart’s death, Plaintiff Jack
Ehrhart would have received a $5,000 bequest, as a grandchild, and a Residuary
Trust for the benefit of Everett Ehrhart would have been created. Upon Everett
Ehrhart’s death, Plaintiff Jack Ehrhart would have received a $5,000 bequest, as
a grandchild, and assets remaining in his Residuary Trust, as well as any
residuary assets in Everett Ehrhart’s estate would have been distributed to his
living descendants, per stirpes. The distributions to the living descendants
would have been placed in Descendant’s Trusts for each descendant entitled to
a distribution. Jack Ehrhart’s father, John Ehrhart, survived both his parents.
Therefore, the distribution to living descendants would have gone to him, and
Jack Ehrhart would not be entitled to a distribution. John Ehrhart is over the
age of 25. Therefore, his trust has terminated, and he received the assets
distributed to him, free and clear of any claim by his descendants. Accordingly,
Jack Ehrhart has no claim to residuary assets of the estates as a living
descendant.
Plaintiff Jack Ehrhart asserted a claim in the Probate Court of Gwinnett
County when the Wills were submitted for probate. The Probate Court found
3
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

that Plaintiff Jack Ehrhart was entitled to $5,000.00 under the Wills of both
Testators. However, the Court found that he was not entitled to any other relief.

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs assert state law claims for “tortious
interference with inheritance, with expectancy; theft and conversion; felony
conspiracy; conflict of interests; bad faith; breach of contract; fraud; and
malice.” Compl., ¶ 9. Plaintiffs allege jurisdiction in this Court based on
diversity of citizenship. It appears from the Complaint that each of the
Plaintiffs is a resident of Iowa and that each of the Defendants is a resident of
Georgia. Compl., 6-7. Thus, Plaintiffs have alleged complete diversity of
citizenship. Compl., ¶ 23. Plaintiffs also make a general allegation that the
amount in dispute exceeds $75,000. Id. However, a review of the Complaint
does not support this allegation. As discussed supra, Plaintiff Jack Ehrhart is
entitled to no more than $10,000 in damages, and the remaining Plaintiffs do
not have viable claims. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to establish the amount
in controversy necessary to sustain diversity jurisdiction.
Based on the foregoing, this case is hereby DISMISSED, for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

4
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

SO ORDERED, this 14th day of May, 2013.

_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)