UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-117-17, 18 pp.) (Mary Geiger Lewis, J.) 6:17-cv-00607; D.S.C.
Holding: Where the defendant-bank says a portion of a decedent’s IRA is necessary to pay a mortgage foreclosure deficiency, but where the IRA was payable on death to the defendant-widow, the court finds it appropriate to invoke interpleader jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 and to allow the plaintiff-financial services company to deposit a $10,000 bond and be discharged from this action.
The court grants plaintiff’s motion to interplead a bond and be discharged. The court grants the defendant-personal representative’s motion to dismiss. The widow is directed to file an amended crossclaim against the bank.
Although the court rejects plaintiff’s request to deposit only a nominal bond, the court agrees with plaintiff that it is better for plaintiff to deposit a bond rather than the disputed assets. Depositing the assets would require liquidating at least a portion of the widow’s account, which could result in irreparable harm to her in the event she ultimately prevails in this action. A bond in the amount of $10,000 conditioned upon plaintiff’s compliance with any present or future order of the court in this matter is sufficient to protect the interests of the bank and to invoke interpleader jurisdiction under § 1335.
Because plaintiff has failed to cite any controlling precedent in support of its request for attorneys’ fees and costs, and because of the plausible suggestion that plaintiff could have taken earlier steps to clarify the ownership of the disputed assets, the court denies plaintiff’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Where the defendant-personal representative “hereby waives any and all claims to [the disputed assets],” the court grants the personal representative’s motion to dismiss.
The widow has filed a crossclaim against the bank, alleging tortious interference with contractual relations. The bank asserts that the widow’s argument in support of her crossclaim is against public policy because it would effectively prevent all garnishment actions by exposing all garnishees to liability for breach of contract and all creditors pursuing garnishment to contractual interference claims. However, garnishment proceedings arise in a variety of contexts, and the bank has failed to convince the court that the widow’s theory is an affront to public policy.
Similarly, the bank cites no controlling precedent in support of its contention that the widow’s crossclaim is barred by an absolute privilege covering statements made during litigation.
Nevertheless, the widow’s crossclaim does little more than recite the elements of a cause of action for tortious interference with contractual relations. The court sua sponte grants the widow leave to amend.
Motions granted.
The post Civil Practice – Interpleader – Trusts & Estates – Payable on Death IRA – Decedent’s Debt first appeared on South Carolina Lawyers Weekly.