Berke v. Fidelity Brokerage Services, 031720 NCCA, COA19-641
|Opinion Judge:||BROOK, JUDGE.|
|Party Name:||JULIE BERKE, Plaintiff, v. FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES, the ESTATE OF GARY IAN LAW, and AMAN MASOOMI, Individually and as Sole Heir and Executor of the ESTATE OF SHARON LEE DAY, Defendants.|
|Attorney:||Tillman, Whichard & Cagle, PLLC, by Willis P. Whichard and Sarah Elizabeth Tillman, for the Plaintiff-Appellant. Roberti, Wicker, Lauffer & Cinski, P.A., by R. David Wicker, Jr., for the Defendant-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Judges STROUD and ARROWOOD concur.|
|Case Date:||March 17, 2020|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of North Carolina|
Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 December 2019.
Appeal by Plaintiff from judgment entered 10 October 2018 by Judge Carolyn J. Thompson in Durham County No. 16 CVS 3056 Superior Court.
Tillman, Whichard & Cagle, PLLC, by Willis P. Whichard and Sarah Elizabeth Tillman, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.
Roberti, Wicker, Lauffer & Cinski, P.A., by R. David Wicker, Jr., for the Defendant-Appellees.
Julie Berke ("Plaintiff") appeals from judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding that the estate of Gary Law, her former husband, is the beneficiary of certain retirement accounts. We hold that the trial court erred by submitting this issue to the jury because there was insufficient evidence that anyone other than Plaintiff was the beneficiary of these accounts at the time of Mr. Law's death. It was therefore error to deny Plaintiff's motion for directed verdict on this issue and her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment and award of costs.
Plaintiff was married to Mr. Law on 24 May 1992. The couple separated on 25 January 2014, entered a Separation and Property Settlement Agreement ("the Separation Agreement") on 12 February 2015, and then divorced on 9 April 2015. Mr. Law died on 17 September 2015 and his sister and sole heir, Sharon Day, died on 2 December 2015. When Mr. Law died, he owned three retirement accounts in the custody of Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC ("Fidelity").
On 6 May 2016, Plaintiff initiated an action for a declaratory judgment that she was the beneficiary of Mr. Law's retirement accounts at Fidelity at the time of his death. In a 2 October 2017 answer, Mr. Law's estate admitted that the Separation Agreement entered into by Plaintiff and Mr. Law expressly provided that there was no release of property and estate rights with respect to any beneficiary designations existing at the time of the execution of the Agreement or made thereafter; that Mr. Law never made any changes to the beneficiary designations for his Fidelity accounts after the execution of the Agreement; and that Plaintiff therefore remained the beneficiary of Mr. Law's accounts at Fidelity ending in numbers 4418, 1424, and 2628 at the time of his death. Mr. Law's estate thus conceded in its 2 October 2017 answer that Plaintiff was entitled to a declaratory judgment that she was the beneficiary of the Fidelity accounts at the time of Mr. Law's death.
The executor and sole heir of Mr. Law's sister, however, did not so concede. In answers filed on 23 June 2016, 27 October 2017, and 3 November 2017, the executor and sole heir of Ms. Day, Aman Masoomi, disputed whether Plaintiff was entitled to the assets in the Fidelity accounts in both his personal capacity and as Ms. Day's executor. If the accounts had no beneficiary at the time of Mr. Law's death, Mr. Masoomi had an interest in the accounts: (1) he was Ms. Day's sole heir; (2) Ms. Day was Mr. Law's sole heir; and (3) Ms. Day and Mr. Law had both since passed away.
In an order entered 3 April 2018 denying Plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether she was the beneficiary of the accounts, the trial court determined that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mr. Masoomi had an interest in the accounts. Before the court at this summary judgment hearing were documents that purported to be letters from Mr. Law and Ms. Day to Fidelity. Each of these letters purportedly pre-dated the death of the respective decedent, and each appeared to attempt to change the beneficiary designations of Mr. Law's retirement accounts.1
However, ruling on a motion in limine in August 2018, the court determined that there was a genuine issue as to the authenticity of these documents. And, before trial began, the parties stipulated that (1) "Fidelity ha[d] not been able to locate any records in its custody and control that indicate that Fidelity received any written changes, modifications, or revocations from Gary Ian Law to the beneficiary designation for account #1424, #4418 prior to September 17, 2015"; and (2) "[o]n September 15, 2015, Julie L. Berke-Law was listed in Fidelity's records as the designated beneficiary of Gary Ian Law's account #4418, #1424, and #2628." In granting Plaintiff's motion and excluding the letters from the jury's consideration, the trial court found not only that there was a genuine issue as to the authenticity of the documents, but also that, based on the parties' pretrial stipulations regarding the absence of any record communications changing the beneficiary designations for the accounts and receipt of the same by Fidelity, "the probative value of the letters [was] outweighed by the unfair prejudice they would offer to the jury."
The case came on for trial before the Honorable Carolyn J. Thompson in Durham County Superior Court on 10 September 2018...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP