Butler v. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 92 C 7397.
Decision Date | 11 January 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 92 C 7397.,92 C 7397. |
Citation | 843 F. Supp. 387 |
Parties | Nicolette Anne BUTLER, Plaintiff, v. ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, INC., etc., The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, and Anthony J. Contini, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
John J. Casey, Hamblet, Casey, Oremus & Vacin, Chicago, IL, for plaintiff.
Joan Edmonds Brophy, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago, IL, Thomas Wilson Waters, Kemp & Capanna, Ltd., Oak Brook, IL, George N. Vurdelja, Jr., Chicago, IL, for defendants.
This case centers around a dispute between Nicolette Butler ("Butler") and Anthony Cotini ("Cotini"), respectively the daughter and husband of Celia Cotini ("Celia"), over who is entitled to benefits payable by the Encyclopaedia Britannica Pension Plan (the "Pension Plan") and Encyclopaedia Britannica Savings Plan (the "Savings Plan") following the death of Celia in August 1992. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. ("Britannica") is the Plan Administrator for both plans.1 Both plans are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Presently pending are various cross motions for summary judgment.2 Except as indicated below, the facts are not in dispute.
At the time of her death, Celia was 65 years old and an employee of Britannica. She was employed by Britannica for 37 years. Two benefits were payable upon Celia's death, pension benefits titled a "spouse's death benefit" in the Pension Plan and savings benefits payable by the Savings Plan. The pension benefits were fully funded by Britannica while Celia made contributions to the Savings Plan. Celia had filed designation forms with both plans designating Butler as the beneficiary of pension benefits and savings benefits. Both forms were dated August 27, 1990 and were signed by Cotini.
The pension benefits designation form provides in part:
_____________________________________ Notary Public's Signature ______________________________________ Date Commission Expires
The savings benefits designation form is similar. It provides in part:
______________________________________ Notary Public's Signature ______________________________________ Date Commission Expires
Celia completed a designation form for each Plan. Both forms are dated August 27, 1990 and both forms designate Butler as the primary beneficiary and Butler's children as the contingent beneficiaries. The forms are signed by both Celia and Cotini. The notary portion of each form is filled in and signed and notarized by Louise Joslyn, an employee of Britannica. Cotini admits that his signature on each form is authentic. He, however, denies that he read the forms when he signed them and also denies that the forms were signed in the presence of the notary public. Joslyn does not specifically recall meeting Cotini and testified that she sometimes notarized documents without the signing party being present. Cotini contends that the uncontested facts show that he did not sign the forms in the notary's presence. Butler contends that a notarization is presumed to be correct and that the uncontested facts are that Cotini has failed to rebut the presumption that each form was signed in the presence of the notary.3
A notary public's certification of acknowledgement is presumed correct. See 1 Am.Jur.2d Acknowledgements §§ 92, 94, 98 (1962). That presumption can be overcome, however, including by evidence that the signing party was not present before the notary. See id. §§ 94, 98. For purposes of the summary judgment motion, a factual dispute exists as to whether Cotini signed the pension benefits designation in the notary public's presence. That dispute, however, is held to be immaterial to the resolution of the summary judgment motions.
Britannica determined that the designation form is not applicable to a spouse's death benefit and therefore determined that Cotini is entitled to the pension benefits. However, as a result of Butler's filing of this lawsuit, Britannica has refrained from distributing the pension benefits until the lawsuit is resolved. Britannica and Cotini argue, based on language in Article X of the Pension Plan, that the spouse's death benefit can only be paid to a spouse, cannot be designated for payment to another person, and a spouse cannot give a waiver. Alternatively, Cotini argues that the designation is invalid because he did not sign it in the presence of the notary public. It is Butler's position that ERISA and the Pension Plan both require that a participant be entitled to designate a beneficiary other than the participant's spouse. Butler also argues that the pension benefits designation is valid.
As to the savings benefits, it is Britannica's position that Cotini failed to timely contest the validity of the designation form. Britannica released the savings benefits to Butler after the filing of this lawsuit, but before Cotini had filed his counterclaim and cross-claim raising the savings benefits dispute. Britannica contends that, prior to filing his claims, Cotini raised no dispute as to the savings benefits and therefore has no claim against Britannica for the benefits which Britannica has already paid to Butler. Alternatively, Britannica contends that the designation is facially valid and that it was not required to look beyond the face of the designation. Britannica also takes the position that the designation form is valid even if it must be considered that Cotini signed it outside the presence of the notary public.
Butler contends that the savings benefits designation is valid or, alternatively, that any claim of Cotini must be against Britannica. The parties agree that the savings benefits could be designated to be paid to someone other than Celia's spouse, but it is also Cotini's position that Celia's designation is invalid because Cotini did not sign it in the notary public's presence.
As to Butler, Cotini contends there is a constructive trust and that this court may exercise its...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
US v. ALL ASSETS & EQUIP. OF WEST SIDE BLDG., 89 C 2736.
... ... Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 ... ...
-
Butler v. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc.
...On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court held in favor of Butler under both plans. Butler v. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc., 843 F.Supp. 387 (N.D.Ill.1994). Brittanica and Cotini have appealed the district court's decision with respect to the Pension Plan. Cotini also appea......
-
Burns v. ORTHOTEK INC. EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN
...but signed it outside the presence of any notary public or plan representative." Id. at 293, quoting Butler v. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 843 F.Supp. 387, 396 (N.D.Ill.1994). The Seventh Circuit considered the purpose of the statutory "witness" requirement simply one of certifying the ......
-
In re Larry L. Thompson Revocable Trust
...the presence of the witnessing notary public or plan representative, without defeating any substantive statutory objective." 843 F.Supp. 387, 396 (N.D.Ill.1994), rev'd in On appeal, the Seventh Circuit noted that the usual dictionary definition of the word "witness" is "[t]o see or observe.......