G. Eric Brunstad, Jr., Individually and as Trustee of the Brunstad Family Living Trust v. C. Judith Brunstad, Individually and as Executrix under the Will of George Eric Brunstad, Sr., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire resolves, in part, a motion to dismiss claims arising from alleged sexual abuse, administration of an estate, and disposition of trust-related real property. The court denies dismissal of most claims, dismisses the constructive-trust claim to the extent it seeks relief against the Abbey Lane property itself because current owners were not joined, and denies dismissal as to the sale proceeds. The court declines to resolve the sexual-assault claim pending briefing on whether the probate exception to federal jurisdiction applies.

Holdings

1. At the pleading stage, standing and failure-to-state-a-claim challenges are evaluated under the plausibility standard; the plaintiff must plausibly plead facts supporting standing and a viable claim.
2. The court could not determine the motion to dismiss the sexual-assault and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims, or the executor-de-son-tort-based accounting theory, without supplemental briefing concerning whether the probate exception deprived the federal court of jurisdiction.
3. Eric plausibly stated a basis for declaratory relief concerning the Abbey Lane property or its sale proceeds, and the claim was not barred at the pleading stage by the statute of frauds or limitations.
4. The constructive-trust claim was dismissed to the extent it sought to impose a constructive trust on the Abbey Lane property itself because the current property owners were not joined.
5. Eric plausibly stated a constructive-trust claim concerning the proceeds from the sale of the Abbey Lane property, and the claim was not dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds.
6. Eric plausibly stated an unjust-enrichment claim; contractual privity was not required, and the allegations could establish that Judith received a benefit at Eric's or the Trust's expense that would be unjust to retain.
7. The court denied dismissal of Eric's tortious-interference-with-inheritance-or-gift claim because it predicted that New Hampshire would recognize the claim and the asserted probate remedy was not shown to be adequate.
8. Eric failed to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because Judith's alleged conduct, even considered cumulatively, did not plausibly rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required by New Hampshire law.
9. The request for punitive damages was stricken because New Hampshire does not permit punitive damages absent statutory authorization, and no applicable authorization was identified.
10. Any waiver of Eric's jury-trial right was excusable under Rule 39(b), and Judith's objection to the jury demand was rejected.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court could resolve Judith's motion to dismiss the sexual-assault, accounting, and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims without first determining whether the probate exception to federal subject-matter jurisdiction applied.
2. Whether Eric plausibly stated a claim for declaratory relief concerning the Abbey Lane property or its sale proceeds, and whether the statute of frauds or limitations barred that claim.
3. Whether Eric could pursue a constructive-trust claim concerning the Abbey Lane property or its sale proceeds without joining the current property owners.
4. Whether Eric plausibly stated an unjust-enrichment claim despite the absence of contractual privity.
5. Whether New Hampshire would recognize a tortious-interference-with-inheritance-or-gift claim and whether an asserted probate remedy required dismissal.
6. Whether Eric plausibly alleged extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
7. Whether punitive damages were available under New Hampshire law for the asserted claims.
8. Whether any waiver of Eric's jury-trial demand was excusable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b).

Disposition

other