JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. LUNT et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)this Courtwilldirecttransfer ofthisslitigationtotheUnitedStatesDistrict Courtfor the WesternDistrict ofPennsylvaniaAnOrderconsistent withthis determinatwillbefiledcontemporaneouslySigned by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 12/11/15. (cc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jackson National
Insurance Company

fe

Plaintiff
Case No. 3:15-CV-717

v.
Linda Lunt, Lisa Donovan,
Lonnie Brice,
an
ch,
lexander Polkowski, and
Richard Polkowski

(Judge Richard P. Conabof)fLED
C'f""".

N

Defendants
Memorandum
Before the Court is a Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 28) in
the above-referenced matter, a dispute over which party or parties
is the rightful owner of three insurance policies on t
Decedent Flora Yurkanin, filed by Defendants

life of

sa Donovan, Lonnie

Brice, Brian Laurich, Alexander Polkowski and Richard Polkowski
(the "moving Defendants").
Defendant Linda Lunt.

This motion has been opposed by co-

The object of moving Defendants' motion is

to persuade this Court to "abstain from exercising further
ence of any claim before

is Court

and the concurrent pendency of a state court action."

(Doc. 28,

juris

1).

ction

due to the

<J[

The state court action referenced in the motion is an estate

IProceeding in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas.

(Doc.

The Court has already exercised jurisdiction over this interpleader action to the extent that it
as ordered Plaintiff Jackson National Life Insurance Company ("Jackson") to pay the contested
funds into the Court's registry. (See Doc. 36).
I

1

28,

<J1

4).

The moving Defendants assert, without specific detail,

that "matters relating to Lunt's presumed claims have been
litigated in the Orphans' Court (of Westmoreland County) and that
it would be in the interest of judicial efficiency and conserve the
parties' resources to permit the Westmoreland County Court of
Common Pleas to determine the rightful owner of the sums in
question."

(Doc. 28,

<J1<J1

5 and 13).

Defendant Lunt objects to a stay of proceedings in this Court
and contends that the question of which party or parties should
receive the insurance proceeds in question has not yet been
addressed in the Westmoreland County action.

(Doc. 35 at 5)

Defendant Lunt asserts further that, because the sums in question,
the proceeds of three insurance policies, are not probate in
nature, the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas does not
enjoy purview over these assets.

(Id). Should it ultimately be

determined that any of the parties to this action are entitled to
the funds in question, the funds will, indeed, pass via contract
and not via probate.
Defendant Lunt also contends that she is entitled to the
proceeds in question under a change of beneficiary form executed by
decedent Flora Yurkanin on December 28, 2007.

(Doc. 35-1, Ex. A).

Defendant Lunt argues that subsequent change of beneficiary forms
in favor of the moving defendants that were executed by Flora
Yurkanin in 2011 were not executed by her at a time when she was in

2

a sound and disposing mind.
The moving Defendants state correctly that the mental capacity
of a donor is presumed under Pennsylvania Law and that the party
opposing such a determination bears the burden of proving
incapacity.

(Doc. 29 at 19-20).

The question whether Flora

Yurkanin retained the mental capacity to execute the change of
beneficiary forms in favor of the moving Defendants in 2011 is one
that can be answered only with resort to medical evidence.

It is a

daunting challenge to ascertain an individual's mental competence
at a precise moment in time because persons suffering from
cognitive problems can have moments of lucidity.
777 A2d. 114, 123 (Pa. Super. 2011).

Estate of Angle,

Defendant Lunt's filings

include mention of two physicians, Dr. Thomas Ljungman and Dr.
Lindsey Groves, who both examined Flora Yurkanin before she
executed the change of beneficiary forms in favor of the moving
Defendants. Both physicians allegedly concluded that she was
entally impaired due to dementia before that date.

In any case, it

appears that these physicians, both of whom reside in western
Pennsylvania, can shed light on the question whether Yurkanin
possessed the mental capacity to execute change of beneficiary
forms in favor of the moving Defendants in November of 2011.
The moving Defendants seek to denigrate Defendant Lunt's
entitlement to the insurance proceeds under previous change of
beneficiary forms executed by Flora Yurkanin on the premise that

3

the power of attorney under which Lunt allegedly arranged to

t

of the subject policies did not authorize her to become

benefici

of those policies.

the bene

Defendant Lunt responds

rself executed the change of beneficiary

Flora Yur

rms

at a time when she was indisputably of sound

Lunt's

mind.

dispos

Witnesses who can testify to the authenticity of

's signature on the change of beneficiary

Flora

rms

favorable to Defendant Lunt are almost certainly resi

s of

estern Pennsylvania.
Certain things are clear to the Court.

First, none of

persons contending to be the beneficiary of the insurance policies
in quest

r to be obviously logical objects of

Yurkanin's bounty.

ora

No filing indicates that any of these

sons

any fashion to Flora Yurkanin. It is also clear that

are relat

fore

uch discovery must be conducted and much evidence compil
any Court is in a position to determine whether ei
De

s or Defendant Lunt have a legitimate c
insurance proceeds.

contest

moving

r

im to

It may very well be

the
contesting

reviewing Court will ultimately decide that none of
De

s

case the
It is also

re are entitled to these insurance proceeds, in which
will pass to the residuum of the Yur

n Estate.

ear that the witnesses whose testimony will

relevant to resolving these issues are all located

western

Pennsylvania, thus making it more convenient and economical to

4

litigate this matter there.

Moreover, the party who chose this

Court as the site of its interpleader, Jackson, has no further
interest in this matter as the Court has directed it to deposit the
funds in question into the Court's registry and absolved it of
Thus, we now confront a purely

further liability in this matter.

state court issue in a matter where complete diversity of the
parties does not exist.

This calls into question the propriety of

this Court continuing to exert jurisdiction over a case that has
only the most tenuous connection to the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.
The Court believes that the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania is the most appropriate venue
to expeditiously resolve this matter.

The Court is empowered to

transfer this case sua sponte to any district where it might
originally have been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

1404(a).

Ondis v. City of Woonsocket, 480 F.Supp. 2d (D. Mass. 2007);
Keating Fiber Intern, Inc. V. Weyerhauser Co., Inc., 416 F.Supp. 2d
1048

(E.D. Pa. 2006).

Defendants Lunt, Brice and Laurich live in

or closer to the Western District of Pennsylvania than any point in
the Middle District of Pennsylvania while Defendants Donovan and
the two Po1kowski's live closer to this Court.

Thus, the

convenience of the remaining parties will be equally well served in
either venue.

Yet, as stated earlier, the key witnesses and

pertinent documentary evidence are heavily concentrated in western

5

ora Yurkanin, whose assets are the focus of this

Pennsylvania and

atter, lived her entire life there.
availability of the

tnesses

lS

pe

to be considered when a court cons

convenience and
s the most important factor
rs a change of venue.

Hotel

Constructors, Inc. v. Seagrave Corp., 543 F.Supp. 1048, 1051 (N. D.
111.1982);
42,

48

v. Leader Dogs

the Blind, Inc., 544 F.Supp.
interest of judicial economy

(E.D. Pa. 1982). Thus, in

and overall convenience for the parties and witnesses,

Motion

to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 28) in federal court will be denied and
this Court will

rect transfer of

States District Court for the Western
Order consistent with this determinat

s litigation to the United
strict of Pennsylvania.
will be filed

contemporaneously.

BY THE COURT

. Conaboy
ct Court

6

An