Whitman v. Whitman et al
Filing
59
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO RELEASE INTERPLEADED FUNDS 46 AND DENYING DEFENDANT ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES 47 AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD N OT BE DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is hereby ORDERED to release the funds deposited with the Court pursuant to its previous Order 29 granting Allianz's Motion to Implead Subject Annuities as follows: $42,000.00 to John L. Heilbrun, and & #036;3,029.43 to Donald J. Rafferty. Allianzs First Claim for Relief (Interpleader) [Doc. 2 - at 16-20) in its Counterclaim and Crossclaim is DISMISSED with prejudice, Esther Whitman, Executrix and the Estate of Roy M. Whitman, is DISMISSED with pr ejudice from any and all claims and crossclaims. Allianzs Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses 47 is DENIED; and the remaining parties are hereby ORDERED to show cause, within seven daysof entry of this Order, why this matter should not be dismissed in its entirety.Any response should not exceed three pages. Failure to respond to this Orderto show cause will result in dismissal of the case and its termination on theCourts docket. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 6-11-2018. (de)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
BRUCE B. WHITMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ESTATE OF ROY W. WHITMAN,
ESTHER WHITMAN, EXTRX., et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:17-cv-667
Judge Thomas M. Rose
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO RELEASE
INTERPLEADED FUNDS (DOC. 46) AND DENYING DEFENDANT ALLIANZ
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA’S MOTION FOR
AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES (DOC. 47) AND ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
This case is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Release Interpleaded Funds,
Dismiss Allianz’s Impleader Claim for Relief with Prejudice, and Dismiss Esther
Whitman, Executrix and the Estate of Roy M. Whitman from this Action with Prejudice
(Doc. 46) filed by Plaintiffs Bruce B. Whitman, Joy Whitman and Laura Whitman
(“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Esther Whitman (“Esther”), Executrix, and the Estate of Roy
M. Whitman, and the Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (Doc. 47) filed
by Defendant Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America (“Allianz”). The
motions are fully briefed and ripe for review. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS
the Joint Motion to Release Interpleaded Funds (Doc. 46) and DENIES the Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (Doc. 47). As there appear to be no further contested
claims, cross-claims or counterclaims pending, the Court further ORDERS the parties to
show cause why this case should not be dismissed in its entirety.
I.
JOINT MOTION TO RELEASE INTERPLEADED FUNDS
This action concerns three Allianz annuity policies, which Roy Whitman (“Roy”),
now deceased, purchased in 2001. Upon Roy’s death, the individual Plaintiffs and Esther,
on behalf of Roy’s Estate, claimed ownership of the annuities and their proceeds. Due to
these competing claims, Allianz filed an interpleader claim to deposit the annuities with
the Court until the question of who owned them was resolved. Having reached an
agreement concerning distribution of the annuities, Plaintiffs and Esther now jointly
move the Court to distribute those funds per their agreement, dismiss Allianz’s
interpleader claim, and dismiss Esther and Roy’s Estate from this action with prejudice.
Defendant Frederick D. Tucker (“Tucker”), who Plaintiffs alleged made negligent
misrepresentations in selling the annuities to Roy, filed a Memorandum in Opposition
(Doc. 49) to the Joint Motion to Release Interpleaded Funds. Tucker’s only argument,
however, is that Plaintiffs’ claim against him should be dismissed as moot if the dispute
regarding ownership of the annuities is resolved. Tucker’s argument is irrelevant to the
issues raised by the Joint Motion and serves only as a procedurally improper motion to
dismiss the claim against him. In any event, the Court has already dismissed the claim
against Tucker in ruling on his and Allianz’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
(Doc. 54.) Tucker’s argument therefore may be set aside.
Allianz opposes the Joint Motion on two grounds. (Doc. 51.) First, Allianz argues
that the Court should not permit disbursement of the deposited funds until it has ruled
2
on Allianz’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses in connection with its interpleader
claim. Second, Allianz argues, like Tucker, that the agreement between Plaintiffs and
Esther renders the claims against Allianz moot.
The second argument may be
disregarded for the same reasons that the Court set aside Tucker’s similar argument.
Allianz does not oppose dismissal of its interpleader claim once the issue of its attorneys’
fees is resolved.
As discussed below, the Court denies Allianz’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and
Expenses—removing any concern that it might affect distribution of the deposited funds.
Allianz has not sought attorneys’ fees with respect to Plaintiffs’ other claims, which have
been dismissed. The Court therefore GRANTS the Joint Motion to Release Interpleaded
Funds and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claims against Esther and the Estate.
II.
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES
Allianz moves for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses totaling $7,601.50
related to the filing of its interpleader claim. (Docs 47, 47-1.) Plaintiffs oppose Allianz’s
motion. (Doc. 48.)
“Neither Rule 22 nor the interpleader statute contains an express reference to costs
or attorney's fees.” Holmes v. Artists Rights Enforcement Corp., 148 Fed. Appx. 252, 259 (6th
Cir. 2005) (quoting 7 Wright & Miller § 1719). The Sixth Circuit has long recognized,
however, that a district court has authority to award reasonable attorney’s fees in a
statutory interpleader action. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Bondurant, 27 F.2d 464, 465
(6th Cir. 1928). “An interpleading party is entitled to recover costs and attorney’s fees
when it is (1) a disinterested stakeholder, (2) who has conceded liability, (3) has deposited
3
the disputed funds into court, and (4) has sought a discharge from liability.” Holmes, 148
Fed. Appx. at 259 (citing Septembertide Publ’g v. Stein and Day, 884 F.2d 675 (2d Cir. 1989)).
“The only limiting principle is reasonableness, and it is at the discretion of the Court to
determine what award is appropriate.” Id.
Allianz argues that it is entitled to an award as a disinterested stakeholder that
conceded liability, deposited the disputed funds into the Court, and sought discharge.
Plaintiffs argue that the equities in this case are not that simple. They argue that Allianz
is not a disinterested stakeholder because its professional negligence created the
ambiguities in the annuities that led to this dispute. They allege that Allianz wrongfully
withheld the proceeds from the annuities, despite allegedly knowing that Plaintiffs were
entitled to them, and then sat on the disputed claim for almost a year before filing for
interpleader. Plaintiffs also complain that Allianz refused to participate in mediation
and, instead, aggressively litigated every issue in this case.
Based on the unique circumstances of this case, an award of attorneys’ fees and
expenses is not appropriate. Although Allianz did not have an interest in the deposited
funds themselves, it did have an interest in this case. Plaintiffs allege that Allianz’s
professional negligence in issuing the annuities led to their dispute with Esther and Roy’s
Estate. Specifically, they allege that Tucker failed to obtain the necessary documentation
to establish Roy’s intent as to the annuities upon his death. The Court dismissed
Plaintiffs’ claims against Allianz and Tucker based on these allegations as barred by the
statute of limitations. Their merits therefore have not been adjudicated. Nonetheless,
Allianz had more at stake in this case than merely disbursing the annuities’ proceeds.
4
Plaintiffs argue that this case might have never been filed, but for Allianz’s
insistence that Plaintiffs and Esther sign indemnification agreements before it would
release the annuities. (Doc. 48 at 7-8.) After Esther refused to sign the indemnification
agreement, the parties proceeded to litigation. Allianz’s call logs support this view, and
Allianz has not refuted it.
It appears that Allianz required the indemnification
agreements because the documentation for the annuities was incomplete or so
ambiguous that it could not conclusively determine who was entitled to them. Allianz’s
insistence on indemnification agreements underscores the fact that it was not entirely
disinterested in this matter. To the contrary, it recognized that it might have some
liability and sought to protect itself accordingly. Thus, despite the fact that Allianz does
not claim any interest in the annuities’ proceeds, its interest in protecting itself from
liability may have necessitated filing the interpleader claim.
In sum, this is not a situation where a truly disinterested stakeholder is forced to
bring an interpleader action to extricate itself from someone else’s dispute. In such cases,
courts regularly award reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in large part because the
interpleader action serves only the disputing parties’ interests. In this case, Allianz’s role
in the issuance of the annuities caused it to have an interest in how the parties resolved
their dispute. The interpleader action thus served both Allianz’s interests and the
interests of the competing claimants.
It would be inappropriate to shift Allianz’s
attorneys’ fees and expenses under these circumstances—especially in light of the
significance of the requested fees (approx. $7,650) relative to the total amount of the fund
5
(approx. $45,000). The Court therefore DENIES Allianz’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and
Expenses (Doc. 47.)
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the Court rules as follows:
1. The Joint Motion for Release of Interpleaded Funds (Doc. 46) is GRANTED;
a. The Clerk of Court is hereby ORDERED to release the funds deposited
with the Court pursuant to its previous Order (Doc. 29) granting
Allianz’s Motion to Implead Subject Annuities as follows:
i. $42,000.00 to John L. Heilbrun, and
ii. $3,029.43 to Donald J. Rafferty;
b. Allianz’s First Claim for Relief (Interpleader) (Doc. 2 at ¶ 16-20) in its
Counterclaim and Crossclaim is DISMISSED with prejudice;
c. Esther Whitman, Executrix and the Estate of Roy M. Whitman, is
DISMISSED with prejudice from any and all claims and crossclaims;
2. Allianz’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (Doc. 47) is DENIED; and
3. The remaining parties are hereby ORDERED to show cause, within seven days
of entry of this Order, why this matter should not be dismissed in its entirety.
Any response should not exceed three pages. Failure to respond to this Order
to show cause will result in dismissal of the case and its termination on the
Court’s docket.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Monday, June 11, 2018.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?