Campione v. Campione
942 F. Supp. 2d 279
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Marian Campione sues her brother Frank Campione over a Sysco stock joint tenancy transferred in 1973 by their non-party sister Anne Campione ( Sister Pia Marie).
- Anne transferred the Sysco stock to Marian and Frank as joint tenants; Anne did not intend Frank to have an interest, but placed his name on the account for practical reasons.
- Plaintiff alleges she paid all taxes on the stock; Frank has not; stock currently valued at $1,486,559.40 and listed as Marian Campione & Frank J. Campione JT TEN.
- In 2012 Marian and Sister Pia Maria asked Frank to remove his name; Frank refused and admits he is not owner of any portion of the stock.
- Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment of sole ownership, reformation of stock documents, and unjust enrichment; Defendant moves to dismiss all claims as untimely or duplicative.
- The court grants in part and denies in part the motion: reformation and declaratory judgment are dismissed; unjust enrichment survives and is timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual and timeliness of unjust enrichment | Unjust enrichment accrues when the wrongful act occurs, i.e., 2012. | Accrual occurred at the 1973 transfer. | Unjust enrichment timely; accrual tied to 2012 conduct. |
| Accrual and timeliness of reformation | Reformation accrues in 2012 upon the wrongful act. | Reformation accrued in 1973 when the agreement was executed. | Reformation claim is untimely and dismissed. |
| Declaratory judgment duplicative of other claims | Declaratory judgment duplicative and seeks no independent relief. | Declaratory judgment claim dismissed as duplicative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard: plausible claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (twombly plausibility standard; legal conclusions not entitled to assume true)
- Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) (two-step, plausibility tailoring after Twombly/Iqbal)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1990) (factual allegations presumed true on motion to dismiss)
- In re NYSE Specialists Secs. Litig., 503 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007) (context-specific plausibility standard for complaints)
- Hertz Corp. v. City of N.Y., 1 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 1993) (standard for motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Todd v. Exxon Corp., 275 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001) (pleading standard—evidence to support claims, not ultimate outcome)
- Saull v. Seplowe, 32 Misc.2d 303, 223 N.Y.S.2d 324 (N.Y.Sup. 1961) (accrual of rescission or reformation at time of execution)