PHILADELPHIA – Defendants named in a Florida man’s lawsuit over the alleged inequitable distribution of assets from his mother’s will to himself and his two siblings, have countered that the plaintiff’s suit fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
John R. Greisiger first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 15 versus High Swartz, LLP, Kathleen Thomas, Esq. and Judith Loughlin, all of Pennsylvania.
“Ruth Greisiger is the mother of three adult children, Judith Loughlin, Arthur Greisiger and plaintiff John R. Greisiger. Ruth passed away on Sept. 10, 2021. Her last will was purportedly written and signed on May 7, 2019. The will was written by the law firm of High Swartz and attorney Thomas. Attorney Thomas was one of two witnesses to the execution and notarization of the will. High Swartz and Thomas were engaged to accomplish Ruth’s long-stated intention to equally distribute her assets within and outside of a will equally amongst her children,” the suit said.
“It was common knowledge amongst her three children, as stated from time to time by Ruth herself, that she intended to distribute her remaining assets equally to her children, even though some assets were to be dedicated to one child or another. Nevertheless, her intention was that in the end, her probate and non-probate assets were to be equally distributed to her children. By May of 2019, Ruth was in poor physical and mental health, and required extensive care and treatment. Care and treatment for her physical and mental conditions required payment over and above any available insurance coverage. Payment was funded through Ruth’s existing assets, which included investments and trusts.”
The suit explained that prior to May 2019, she parted ways with her prior counsel and was then brought to High Swartz and Thomas – who created the will, accounted for all of her assets and created the necessary documents to achieve that objective.
The suit is further dedicated to righting a “scheme that failed to accomplish the equal distribution of Ruth’s assets to her children.”
“The utter failure of High Swartz, attorney Thomas and defendant Loughlin, to the extent defendant Loughlin was bound to achieve the intentions and objective of Ruth to equally distribute her assets to her children, constitutes a breach of contractual duties and obligations, and that is compounded and complicated by the conduct of defendant Loughlin, who used undue influence to deny plaintiff’s rights to an equal hare of Ruth’s assets,” the suit stated.
UPDATE
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on April 21, for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted.
“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against attorney defendants for which relief may be granted as all three counts. With respect to the breach of contract claim, plaintiff lacks standing. As to the count for tortious interference with an inheritance or expectancy, Pennsylvania law does not recognize the cause of action in the form pursued by plaintiff. With respect to ‘concert of action’, attorney defendants are not alleged to have taken any specific action, and to the extent that plaintiff argues that attorney defendants permitted Loughlin to improperly use her mother’s money by abusing a power of attorney, Plaintiff does not allege any facts to establish defendant attorneys had any control whatsoever over Loughlin, or that she acted upon their advice,” per the dismissal motion.
“Further, plaintiff has already filed similar litigation in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas and Orphans’ Court, which possesses jurisdiction over any litigation concerning the distribution of assets due to Ruth’s death, whether through probate or non-probate mechanisms. In fact, the probate exception to jurisdiction serves as an absolute bar to this matter being litigated in federal court. Lastly, because litigation concerning the probate of plaintiff’s mother’s estate is presently ongoing in Orphans’ Court, this Honorable Court should refrain from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff’s present claims pursuant to the abstention doctrine. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against the attorney defendants must be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).”
For multiple counts of breach of contract, tortious interference with an inheritance or expectancy and concert of action to interfere with same, the plaintiff is seeking judgment in personum equal to the value of one-third of Rute’s non-probate estate against each defendant, an award of damages, including punitive damages, to be established at trial, interest, costs and such further relief as this Court may deem just and equitable.
The plaintiff is represented by Richard J. Gerace of Gerace Law Office, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Jessica M. Keough and Paul C. Troy of Kane Pugh Knoell Troy & Kramer in Norristown, plus Samantha B. Kats of Mannion Prior, in King of Prussia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-00591
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com