Boyle v. Crimm

• Decision Date: 08 December 1952
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 42989,42989,1
• Citation: 253 S.W.2d 149,363 Mo. 731
• Parties: BOYLE et al. v. CRIMM
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 149

253 S.W.2d 149

363 Mo. 731

BOYLE et al. v. CRIMM.

No. 42989.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

Dec. 8, 1952.

Arthur C. Popham and Sam Mandell, Kansas City (Popham, Thompson, Popham, Mandell & Trusty, Kansas City, of counsel), for appellant.

Harry A. Hall, Kansas City, for respondent.

Henry I. Eager, Kansas City (Blackmar, Newkirk, Eager, Swanson & Midgley, Kansas City, of counsel), for Occidental Life Ins. Co. of California, defendant.

LOZIER, Commissioner.

Declaratory judgment action involving the proceeds of six life insurance policies in which John P. Boyle was the insured and of which William D. Boyle was the assignee. Plaintiff-respondent Hazel T. Boyle (herein called Mrs. Boyle) is John Boyle's widow. The other plaintiffs-respondents (herein called the Boyle children) are the sons of John Boyle and Mrs. Boyle. Defendant-appellant Roy W. Crimm (herein called Crimm) is the executor of the estate of William Boyle. Defendant Occidental Life Insurance Company of California (herein called Occidental) is the insurer.

Occidental paid the proceeds of the policies, $23,746.90, into court. The trial court discharged Occidental, allowed Occidental a $500 attorney's fee, ordered that such fee and the costs be paid out of the deposited fund, entered judgments for Crimm for $12,861.54 and for plaintiffs-respondents for the balance of the fund. Crimm appealed.

The principal questions are: For whose benefit were the absolute-in-form assignments made? If the assignments were partially for security, what was the debt secured and is the assignee entitled to interest? Other issues involve the admission of evidence and the competency of witnesses.

We review this declaratory judgment case de novo upon the merits, giving due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Sec. 510.310. (Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to RSMo 1949, and V.A.M.S.) As plaintiffs' action is essentially one to establish a resulting trust, we apply equitable principles and rules. Connell v. Jersey Realty & Investment Co., 352 Mo. 1122, 180 S.W.2d 49, 54.

During 1924, 1926 and 1928, the Guaranty Life Insurance Company (herein called Guaranty) issued six policies, totaling $23,550, upon the life of John Boyle. Initially, in two instances, Mrs. Boyle was the sole beneficiary, but in one such instance, prior to the assignments, the Boyle children were made contingent beneficiaries. Mrs. Boyle was the principal beneficiary and the three children were contingent beneficiaries in the other policies. In all six policies, the insured reserved the right to change the beneficiary 'if there be no existing assignment of this policy.' Initially, the proceeds of all six policies were payable in a lump sum. In two instances, supplementary agreements or 'settlement riders,' dated February 10, 1928, were executed whereby the proceeds were to be paid to the beneficiaries in monthly installments for ten years.

In 1928 and 1929, William Boyle paid Guaranty $1461.80, annual premiums and interest on John Boyle's policy loans.

By documents dated June 1, 1930, John Boyle and Mrs. Boyle assigned the policies to William Boyle, John Boyle's brother. The assignments, upon Guaranty's 'Absolute Assignment of Policy' form, were as follows: 'For value received, I do hereby assign, transfer, and set over absolutely unto William T. Boyle * * * all my right, title and interest in and to [the policy] with absolutely all privilege, benefit and advantage secured thereby, or to be had or derived therefrom, * * * hereby giving the said William D. Boyle * * * full power and authority to collect the proceeds thereof at maturity or to surrender the same for its cash value; and to give my receipt therefor which receipt I expressly agree shall be binding upon my heirs, executors, administrators or assigns.' After the assignments had been recorded in Guaranty's home office, the policies and assignments were delivered to William Boyle.

Occidental 'took over' the policies in 1937. William Boyle died in 1938. The policies were listed as assets of his estate and thereafter his executor, Crimm, paid the annual premiums under an order of the probate court. John Boyle died in 1948.

After the assignments, John Boyle made no payments whatever. William Boyle made these payments: On September 30, 1930, $288.40, 1930 premiums delinquent on the date of the assignments; $5297.52, annual premiums; and, in 1936, $370.37, principal and interest on a John Boyle policy loan. After William Boyle's death, Crimm paid $7564.02, annual premiums. The William Boyle $5297.52 premium payments and the Crimm $7564.02 premium payments totaled $12,861.54 (the amount of the judgment in Crimm's favor).

By deposition, Louis H. Burns testified as follows: He was Occidental's district agent and had been Guaranty's agent; he sold five of the policies and serviced all six; John Boyle had paid the premiums quarterly; he kept increasing his insurance and then couldn't pay the premiums and gave Burns an installment note and made a few payments on that note; before the assignments, William Boyle paid 'quite a few premiums' and paid off some of John Boyle's policy loans; after the assignments, John Boyle paid no premiums. Burns 'handled all the assignments for the insurance company * * * acting as agent of the insurance company * * * which was interested in keeping these policies and not forfeited.' Burns said he was 'interested in that, too, because of renewals.'

Burns said that the assignments were executed at the request of William Boyle.

'Q. Will you relate the circumstances leading up to these assignments? A. Well, Jack [John Boyle] couldn't pay the premiums. He asked me to get them from William Boyle, his employer, and I collected several premiums from him [William Boyle] and later I got a note from Jack Boyle for the balance of premiums, and then he couldn't--paid on a monthly basis the balance, and he couldn't pay this balance, and he asked me to see his employer, William Boyle, and I talked to Mr. [William] Boyle, and he said I shouldn't take notes from a man like Jack Boyle because he wasn't good for it. I told Mr. Boyle, 'This insurance is all in force. It would pay his family an income in case something happens to Jack Boyle, and if I were in your shoes, I would rather let the insurance company take care of that as you probably, I don't know, but you might feel obligated to help the family.' He said, 'I think you got me over a barrel, and I guess I better keep it up.' That is what William Boyle said. He paid them [the premiums] along for awhile. I called him one day, and he said, 'I want an assignment on these policies.' I said, 'Do you want a partial assignment or how do you want it written up?' 'I want an absolute assignment,' he said. I said, 'All right, Jack has paid some of the premiums.' 'Well,' he said, 'I want to keep these policies in force so that nobody can interfere with them and they will function as written on the settlement riders. I want to keep them in force that way.' * * * all he told me, he said, 'I talked to Jack and told him I wanted an assignment of the policies.' I don't know what he talked to him about. * * *

'Q. Now, as I understand you, then, William Boyle told you that he had talked with Jack and wanted an assignment of these policies? A. That is correct.

'Q. To him? A. Yes.

'Q. Absolute assignments? A. That is correct.

'Q. So that he could keep them in force? A. And they would function as written as far as settlement riders, pay so much a month for Jack's family. * * *

'Q. Now, when the assignment [of the policy in which Mrs. Boyle was sole beneficiary] was discussed what was said, if anything, by Mr. William Boyle as to who that policy would be payable to? A. He didn't discuss that with me at all. He wanted an assignment on all the policies.

'Q. He wanted an assignment on all the policies? A. Right. * * *

'Q. Now, following that conversation with Mr. William D. Boyle, did you talk, go see Jack or John Boyle? A. Why, certainly. I had to go to see him to have him sign the assignments, he and his wife.

'Q. What was the substance of the conversation between you and them? A. I merely told Jack Boyle that William Boyle asked me to come over and have him sign the assignments and take up the policies and have them recorded.

'Q. Did you tell Jack what William had told you with reference to why he wanted the assignments? A. I told him he wanted the assignments so that the policies would be protected and nobody could interfere with them and they would function as written. Jack said, 'I thought partial assignments would be all right.' I said, 'William wants absolute assignments.' That was the only conversation I had with him.

'Q. Now, you told him they would function as written? A. Yes.

'Q. Did you explain that or--A. No, I didn't explain it. * * * He signed all the settlement agreements.

'Q. Yes, and was anything said in the conversation about having the policies so that they couldn't be surrendered or borrowed on? A. That was the object of the assignment. I told Jack Boyle that.

'Q. Is that what William Boyle said? A. That is what William Boyle said.

'Q. And, did John Boyle and his wife agree to it? A. They both signed them. * * *

'Q. And, at the time John Boyle and his wife, Hazel Boyle, signed them state whether or not you had told them that Mr. Boyle, William Boyle, was going to maintain them in force if they executed these assignments. A. I didn't tell them that. I told them that he wanted the assignments so that the policies would be kept in force and function as written? That is what I said.

'Q. That is for the beneficiaries named as originally written. A. That is right.

'Q. And, that was agreeable to them and they executed the assignments, is that right? A. They signed. I don't know whether it was agreeable or not. I couldn't say to that.'

Thereafter, Burns did not discuss...