Miller v. Miller
1:17-cv-07473
N.D. Ill.Jul 16, 2018Background
- Constance Miller (Indiana) created The Miller Living Trust in 1995 and served as trustee; she died Feb 2016. Her son Robert (Illinois) succeeded as trustee and died Aug 2016. Mark Miller (Georgia) then became trustee and has administered the Trust from Indiana and Georgia.
- Christina Miller (Illinois), beneficiary and Robert’s wife, received a $50,000 check from the Trust but alleges she was owed roughly half of the Trust assets (well over $100,000).
- Christina sued Mark in Illinois state court for breach of fiduciary duty (fraud-based), tortious interference with expectancy/duress, and conversion (including claims about Constance’s IRA, which Christina concedes was not part of the Trust).
- Mark removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court evaluated specific personal jurisdiction under Illinois’s long-arm statute (which incorporates federal due-process limits) and Supreme Court/Seventh Circuit standards for purposeful direction and suit-related contacts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois has specific personal jurisdiction over Mark for Trust-related tort claims | Mark sent $50,000 to Christina in Illinois and communicated with her there; these were intentional tortious acts expressly aimed at Illinois causing injury there | Payments to a beneficiary located in another state do not alone create jurisdiction; reliance on Norton/Hanson to argue insufficient contacts | Court held specific jurisdiction exists: Mark intentionally and expressly aimed conduct at Illinois and knew the effects would be felt there; claims arise from those contacts |
| Whether Christina’s communications/duress and fiduciary-breach claims qualify as intentionally directed torts | The communications and underpayment were intentional, tortious, and aimed at Christina in Illinois | Mark contested jurisdiction on these claims (focus on locus of trust administration) | Court found the Felland/Tamburo three-part test satisfied (intentional conduct, expressly aimed, effects known) |
| Whether payments/contacts incidental to trust administration preclude jurisdiction | Christina contends the payment was central to her claims, not merely incidental | Mark cites Norton/Hanson to argue payments alone are insufficient for jurisdiction | Court distinguished Hanson/Norton as inapposite because the payment here lies at the heart of the dispute and was targeted to an Illinois beneficiary |
| Whether personal jurisdiction extends to claims about Constance’s IRA (not part of the Trust) | Christina included IRA conversion claims tied to Mark’s conduct | Mark argued lack of jurisdiction over IRA claims in reply brief | Court denied Mark’s motion but found Mark forfeited the IRA-specific jurisdiction argument by raising it first in reply, so court did not decide jurisdiction separately for the IRA claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Northern Grain Mktg., LLC v. Greving, 743 F.3d 487 (7th Cir.) (prima facie burden for plaintiff on jurisdiction and written-materials standard)
- Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773 (7th Cir.) (plaintiff must submit affirmative evidence once defendant rebuts jurisdiction)
- Mobile Anesthesiologists Chi., LLC v. Anesthesia Assocs. of Hous. Metroplex, P.A., 623 F.3d 440 (7th Cir.) (apply federal due-process test for Illinois long-arm statute)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (Sup. Ct.) (specific-jurisdiction requires defendant’s own contacts creating substantial connection with forum)
- Felland v. Clifton, 682 F.3d 665 (7th Cir.) (three-part test for purposeful direction in intentional-tort cases)
- Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir.) (relation between defendant’s forum contacts and plaintiff’s injury must be direct)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (Sup. Ct.) (purposeful availment and reasonable anticipation of being haled into court)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (Sup. Ct.) (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (Sup. Ct.) (payment to out-of-forum settlor insufficient where payment is ancillary)
- Norton v. Bridges, 712 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir.) (trust administration contacts and jurisdictional analysis)