Crozier v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S.

• Decision Date: 01 February 1983
• Docket Number: No. 5175-3-II,5175-3-II
• Citation: 658 P.2d 39,33 Wn.App. 828
• Parties: Karen D. CROZIER, Respondent, v. The EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF the UNITED STATES, Respondent, v. Jacklyn A. CROZIER, as Guardian of the Estate of Scott J. Crozier, Jr., Randolph Crozier and Kelly Crozier, Minors, Appellant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 828

33 Wn.App. 828

658 P.2d 39

Karen D. CROZIER, Respondent, v. The EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF the UNITED STATES, Respondent, v. Jacklyn A. CROZIER, as Guardian of the Estate of Scott J.

Crozier, Jr., Randolph Crozier and Kelly Crozier,

Minors, Appellant.

No. 5175-3-II.

Court of Appeals of Washington,

Division 2.

Feb. 1, 1983.

Review Denied May 6, 1983.

Robert Briggs, Tacoma, for appellant.

Alan S. Hutchinson, Tacoma, for respondent.

WORSWICK, Acting Chief Judge.

Jacklyn Crozier appeals a judgment which allocated $17,500 of life insurance proceeds to the children of Jacklyn and decedent Scott Crozier, and $22,500 to Karen Crozier, decedent's widow. Jacklyn contends that the children should receive the entire $40,000 benefit; Karen cross-appeals contending she should receive it all. We hold that the children are entitled to all of the proceeds.

Jacklyn and Scott were married in 1968 and divorced in December 1972. Three children were born of this marriage. None of the children had been emancipated or had attained majority at the time of trial. Scott was a salaried employee of Weyerhaeuser at the time of the divorce and at his death. The company provided group term life insurance for salaried employees and paid the entire premium. The death benefit was coordinated with salary and increased as the employee's salary increased.

Jacklyn and Scott made a property settlement agreement which was approved by the court. It provided, as did the decree, that the policy would be awarded to Scott "provided, however, that he keep the same in full force and effect and maintain the minor children as irrevocable beneficiaries during their minority." Jacklyn had known only that there was a policy. At trial, she was unable to remember if she had known the amount of the death benefit. It was, in fact, $17,500 at the time of the divorce.

Karen and Scott were married in June 1977. At that time, the death benefit had increased, because of salary increases, to $32,500. Scott made Karen the beneficiary; he died in December 1978. By that time the benefit had increased to $40,000.

Jacklyn brought this action against the insurance company which then joined Karen as a party and, essentially, converted the proceeding into an interpleader leaving only Jacklyn and Karen as contestants.

Karen contends that, because the policy was the property of Scott, he had the right to name her as the beneficiary, that the policy was community property and she thereby acquired an interest in it and that, because the children's interest is limited to security for child support, they should get nothing. This is so, she asserts, because they receive social security benefits greater than the support obligation Scott had at the time of his death. Jacklyn simply contends that the children were beneficiaries of the policy, not simply a portion of the variable proceeds, and that they are entitled to all of the proceeds because Scott had irrevocably agreed that they were before Karen entered the picture. We agree with Jacklyn.

Life insurance policies paid for with community funds are community property, although the insured member of the community has the right freely to designate beneficiaries as to that member's one-half community interest. Francis v. Francis, 89 Wash.2d 511, 573 P.2d 369 (1978). Karen argues that it follows that the community created by a second marriage has an interest in policies acquired before that marriage because of premiums paid by the new community. This is logical as far as it goes. However, our cases have consistently recognized that the right to deal freely with such a policy may be limited where there has been an irrevocable designation of beneficiaries. See Francis, 89 Wash.2d at 514; Kirk v. Continental Life & Accident Co., 85 Wash.2d 85, 530 P.2d 643 (1975); Stephen v. Gallion, 5 Wash.App. 747, 749, 491 P.2d 238 (1971). This general proposition was given specific force in Porter v. McLeod, 15 Wash.App. 650, 553 P.2d 117 (1976). In Porter we held that the new community had no interest in the policy, its premium payments notwithstanding, because those payments were compelled, not voluntary, Porter, 15 Wash.App. at 654, 553 P.2d 117, and were used to pay an antenuptial debt brought into the marriage by an "encumbered husband." See also RCW 26.16.200. The principle announced in Porter disposes completely of Karen's arguments both as to Scott's ownership and the interest of the new community. The premiums having been paid entirely by an increment to Scott's salary, and maintenance of the policy by Scott having been compelled by the decree, Scott's ownership was encumbered and the community of Karen and Scott acquired no interest which could defeat the irrevocable rights of the children.

We summarily reject Karen's contention that the children should receive nothing because the insurance was merely security for child support and social security benefits amply cover Scott's obligation in this regard. While it is true that insurance provisions of this kind are considered related to and security for the support obligation, Sutherland v. Sutherland, 77 Wash.2d 6, 459 P.2d 397 (1969); In re Marriage of Donovan, 25 Wash.App. 691, 612 P.2d 387 (1980); In re Estate of Reynolds, 17 Wash.App. 472, 563 P.2d 1311 (1977), it does not follow that the proceeds are not payable to the children because they also receive other benefits. Karen has cited no authority supporting this contention and we have found none. ¹ This is hardly surprising. Presumably Jacklyn and Scott, as well as the judge who signed the decree of dissolution, were aware that social security benefits would be available if Scott died. Nevertheless, they provided for insurance, too. We hold that, absent a demonstrated contrary intent of the parties, insurance proceeds payable pursuant to a decree of dissolution are not to be diminished because there may be a collateral source of support.

The trial judge apparently allocated the proceeds in the belief that the parties were dealing with a fixed amount of death benefits at the time of the decree and that later increases constituted after acquired insurance not contemplated by the decree. No Washington cases have yet dealt with the issue presented by this type of policy. ² We believe the proper approach requires us to view the...