The U. S. District Court for Colorado rules that it does not have jurisdiction to hear an attorney's third-party complaint for indemnification against a Pennsylvania estate simply because the attorney was physically located in Colorado at the time he made promises to a former caregiver about her inheritance. Stoltz v. Macurdy (D. Colo., No. 08-CV-01547-REB-MEH, March 6, 2009).
Between 2004 and 2006, Virginia Stoltz was the personal caretaker of her friend David Prager, who lived in Pennsylvania. Mr. Prager promised Ms. Stoltz that, in return for her services, he would make her the beneficiary of a brokerage account worth about $140,000. When Ms. Stoltz became concerned that Mr. Prager's sister was planning to acquire his estate for herself, Ms. Stoltz asked Mr. Prager's friend, Colorado attorney Tom Macurdy, if she should see an attorney. Attorney Macurdy assured her that he could resolve the problem, and he drafted a promissory note, which Mr. Prager signed, guaranteeing Ms. Stoltz the amount due for her services. After Mr. Prager died, it turned out that he had changed his will and left the brokerage account to the sister.
Ms. Stoltz sued the estate. The court determined that the note was ineffectual, and awarded Ms. Stoltz $48,000 in quantum meruit instead. Ms. Stoltz then filed suit against Attorney Macurdy in Colorado to recover the balance of the note, alleging that he negligently represented her interests. In response, Attorney Macurdy filed a third-party complaint against Mr. Prager's estate for indemnification. The estate responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that there were not enough contacts between Macurdy and the estate in Colorado to allow for the suit to be brought there.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado grants the estate's motion. The court finds that "the only way in which Colorado is connected to the events underlying in this suit is insofar as Macurdy was physically located in this state at the time he made the promise to Stoltz guaranteeing Prager's performance. That circumstance, however, is wholly fortuitous and, thus, clearly insufficient to create personal jurisdiction over the estate in this forum."
Did you know that the ElderLawAnswers database now contains summaries of more than 1,500 fully searchable elder law decisions dating back to 1993? To search the database, click here
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
