ASHLEY NELSON-GUEDEZ VS. JACQUELINE T. LIMOLIÂ (C-101-15, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2476-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Ashley Nelson-Guedez and Lyndsay Nelson-Nugent are daughters of Paul Nelson (deceased). Paul’s father, Theodore Nelson, died in 2011 and left equal shares of his estate to his four children.
- Defendant Jacqueline Limoli (formerly Jacqueline Nelson), Paul’s widow, received Paul’s share of Theodore’s estate.
- Plaintiffs allege Limoli orally (and by a May 2011 writing reflecting a $500,000 transfer) agreed to divide her inheritance into thirds and give roughly $1,000,000 (one-third) to each daughter; some amounts were already transferred.
- Plaintiffs sued in Union County Chancery Division (Sept. 2015) seeking specific performance/compelled transfers. Defendant moved to dismiss under R. 4:6-2(e) for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- The motion judge dismissed with prejudice, concluding Limoli (a Vermont domiciliary) lacked sufficient contacts with New Jersey to permit personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New Jersey courts have personal jurisdiction over Limoli | Limoli had sufficient contacts: visited NJ frequently, attended funeral, communicated with NJ residents, estate probated/administered in NJ, NJ property sale and NJ executrix | Limoli is a Vermont resident; contacts with NJ were sporadic/third-party actions and do not constitute purposeful availment | No personal jurisdiction: contacts were limited/sporadic and insufficient for general or specific jurisdiction |
| Whether complaint should survive R. 4:6-2(e) dismissal on pleadings | Complaint alleges an agreement and partial transfers—should be construed liberally and allowed to proceed | Jurisdictional defect bars proceeding; if no jurisdiction, dismissal proper | Court did not reach merits because lack of jurisdiction was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (1989) (liberal pleading standard on motions to dismiss)
- F.G. v. MacDonell, 150 N.J. 550 (1997) (pleading survives if a cause of action is suggested)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (minimum contacts and purposeful availment; due process limits on jurisdiction)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (foundational minimum contacts test)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (limits on state-court jurisdiction over nonresidents)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (contacts must be with the forum state itself, not via plaintiff or third parties)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (unilateral activity of third parties is not sufficient for personal jurisdiction)
- Waste Management, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 138 N.J. 106 (1994) (distinguishes general vs. specific jurisdiction and fair-play factors)
- Baanyan Software Servs., Inc. v. Kuncha, 433 N.J. Super. 466 (App. Div. 2013) (communications with NJ residents alone are insufficient minimum contacts)