Steele v. First National Bank, 963 F. Supp. 2d 417

Plaintiff John Steele, a Vermont resident, is co-executor and co-beneficiary of the Decedent's estate and co-trustee of the Amended Trust, suing First National Bank of Mifflintown and attorney Elyse Rogers.
Decedent granted First National a durable power of attorney on May 7, 2008, and the bank appointed Kimberly Benner as POA; Rogers assisted in estate planning.
Decedent's will (and a December 2010 codicil) named Plaintiff and Miller as equal co-heirs and appointed First National as sole executor and trustee of the testamentary trust; the codicil revoked First National as executor.
First National executed a September 2010 revocable deed of trust (the September Trust) to manage the trust during Decedent's lifetime, with Plaintiff, Miller, and First National as co-trustees.
Estate Attorneys (Brennan firms) were hired in December 2010; the December Trust aimed to defer estate taxes via transferring assets to the Ross (2010) LLC; funding of the LLC was required from Decedent's First National accounts.
On December 17, 2010, Decedent, Plaintiff, and Miller executed the December Trust; First National refused to fund the LLC; Decedent died two months later, resulting in alleged tax and banking-fee losses; Plaintiff alleges First National willfully/recklessly failed to fund the LLC and relied on Rogers' assertion of Decedent's incompetence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether First National owed a duty to Plaintiff in his personal capacity to support the estate planning	Steele argues duties arise from the Decedent's POA and fiduciary relationship, extending to him as an heir.	First National contends no personal-duty to Plaintiff exists; any duty is to the Decedent under POA/fiduciary roles, not to Plaintiff personally.	Counts II–IV dismissed for lack of any cognizable duty owed to Plaintiff.
Whether negligence and gross negligence claims survive without a personal duty to Plaintiff	Plaintiff asserts derivative duties from the bank's duties to the Decedent extend to him as heir.	No independent duty to Plaintiff; breach/neglect must be owed to Plaintiff personally, not merely derivatively.	Dismissed due to absence of a duty to Plaintiff in his individual capacity.
Whether Plaintiff can state a claim for tortious interference with inheritance against First National	Plaintiff seeks extension of the interference-with-inheritance tort beyond wills to revocable trusts.	Pennsylvania law has limited interference-with-inheritance claims to those involving testamentary schemes; extension to a trust is unsupported.	Count I dismissed; no fraudulent/misleading interference shown.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) sufficiency)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading requires plausible claims, not mere allegations)
Guy v. Liederbach, 459 A.2d 744 (Pa. 1983) (limitations on privity for third-party beneficiary tort claims)
Hollywood v. First National Bank of Palmerton, 859 A.2d 472 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (interference with inheritance limited to certain testamentary contexts)
Mack v. AAA Mid-Atlantic, Inc., 511 F.Supp.2d 539 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (duty element required for negligence claims)