INGRAM v. AMRHEIN et al
Filing
65
MEMORANDUM OPINION re: The 48 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Defendants Richard Amrhein and Consol Energy and the 50 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Defendant Cary Jones. Signed by Judge William L. Standish on 9/1/2011. (md)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NANCY INGRAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 10-1728
RICHARD AMRHEIN, CONSOL ENERGY,
and CARY JONES,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court are motions to dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint filed by Defendants
chard Amrhein and Consol
Energy (Doc. No. 48) and by Defendant Cary Jones (Doc. No. 50.)
both
motions,
brought
pursuant
to
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
In
12(b) (6),
Defendants argue that the claims of Plaintiff Nancy Ingram are barred
by the statute of limitations, that she has failed to meeting the
minimal pleading standards set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
U.S.
,129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), and/or that she has failed to plead
with particularity the elements of her fraud claims as required by
Fed.
R . Ci v.
P.
9 (b) .
motions are granted.
For the reasons that follow,
Defendants'
I.
INTRODUCTION
A.
Factual Historyl
Nancy Ingram was one
of her mother,
aintiff's
Doris
sister,
A.
six beneficiaries of
Rogers,
Sharon
who died
Caldwell,
and
on August
her
estate
11,
brother,
Rogers, were named co-executors of Mrs. Rogers' will.
2003.
Kenneth
Attorney Cary
Jones was hired by the co-executors to assist in probate of the estate
Washington County, Pennsylvan
The only substantial assets of
estate were two parcels of real property,
one consisting of
approximately 22 acres of what appears from the record to be farmland
located in East Finley Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania.
The other property was approximately 77 acres of land, contiguous
to the first property,
Washington County.
but
located in South Franklin Township,
Part of the East
Finley Township property,
consisting of a house and approximately one acre of land,
mailing
address
Pennsylvania.
of
2106
Pleasant
Grove
Road,
had a
Claysville,
Plaintiff refers to this house and acreage in her
pleadings as "2106."
(We will re
to the two parcels of real estate
collectively, including the 2106 house and land, as "the Property"
and to the house and land at 2106 Pleasant Grove Road as "the 2106
property.")
The facts in this section are taken from the Amended Complaint and the
exhibits thereto and construed in favor of Plaintiff.
2
Because there were no other assets which could be used to pay
inheri tance
tax
and
other
costs
of
estate
executors decided to sell the Property.
on November 10,
2003,
administration,
the
Mr. Jones wrote to the heirs
advising them that the farm land had been
appraised at $210,000.00 and "the house" (apparently referring to
2106 property) at $87,500.
(Doc. No. 47, Amended Complaint, "Am.
Compl. ," Exh. 5.)
As
the
estate
was
going through probate,
disputing how the assets should be allocated.
the
heirs
began
Ms. Ingram alleges
in her Amended Complaint and the attachments thereto that she and
her father had orally agreed sometime in t
1970s that Plaintiff
and her former husband could purchase the 2106 property for $30,000.
This sale was never consummated and
aintiff conceded she had never
recei ved a deed to the house and land.
However, Ms. Ingram insisted
that she be allowed to purchase the house for $30,000 rather than
the $87,000 at which it was then appraised and that she also share
equally with the five other heirs; in short, she wanted to receive
the 2106 property "off the top."
Sometime
before
June
16,
2004,
Consol
Coal
Company
of
Pennsylvania ("Consol") was identified as a potential purchaser of
the Property.2
After some negotiations, Consol agreed to purchase
Plaintiff named Consol Energy, not Consol Coal Company of Pennsylvania,
as a defendant in this suit but has not explained why she did so. Al though
2
3
the
Property
for
$348,000
and
the
transfer
aintiff's objections -- on August 2, 2004.
was
made
over
Richard Amrhein served
as attorney on behalf of Consol in the transaction.
aintiff claims that all three Defendants defrauded her by
violating an order purportedly issued by the Honorable Thomas Gladden
in the Orphans Court
Washington County.
Division of the Court of Common
Pleas of
According to Ms. Ingram, on June 16 and June 23,
2004, Judge Gladden held two hearings to address the objections of
Plaintiff (and perhaps those of other heirs) to the upcoming sale
to Consolo
At either t
June 16 or the June 23 hearing,
Gladden ruled possible fraud and denied. . .
to sell [the Property.]"
"Judge
use of the Pef code 3
(Am. Compl., "Exhibits Attached,"
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?