Flowers v. Flowers

Citation224 So.2d 590,284 Ala. 230
Decision Date12 June 1969
Docket Number4 Div. 285
PartiesQuin E. FLOWERS, Jr., et al., as Administrators, etc., v. Evelyn FLOWERS.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Ramsey & Ramsey, Dothan, for appellants.

J. Theodore Jackson, Dothan, for appellee and cross-appellant.

LAWSON, Justice.

Appellants' argued assignments of error challenge the correctness of the trial court's holding that the proceeds of a certain life insurance certificate should be paid to the appellee, Evelyn Flowers, rather than to the appellants, who are the administrators of the estate of James H. Flowers, Jr., deceased, who was the insured in the certificate in question.

Appellee has made cross-assignments of error which assert error by the trial court in decreeing that the attorney's fee awarded appellee's attorney for his services to appellee in this litigation and court costs should be paid from the proceeds of the said insurance certificate.

Evelyn Flowers and James H. Flowers were married on June 24, 1936, and lived together as husband and wife until on or about October 5, 1963, when they separated.

On October 31, 1963, Evelyn Flowers filed suit against James H. Flowers, Jr., for separate maintenance and support.

On March 1, 1964, prior to the disposition of the suit for separate maintenance and support, James H. Flowers, Jr., became insured by Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as Provident) under a master policy insuring employees of General Portland Cement Company, James H. Flowers, Jr., being an employee of said Cement Company at that time. The amount of the insurance coverage on the life of James H. Flowers, Jr., was $27,500.

On March 28, 1964, James H. Flowers, Jr., designated Evelyn Flowers, his then wife, as beneficiary of the proceeds of the certificate of insurance issued to him under the said master policy. The certificate so issued shows the beneficiary to be 'Evelyn Flowers, Wife.' The certificate issued to James H. Flowers, Jr., gave to him the right to change the beneficiary by virtue of the following language contained therein: '* * * Any Employee may from time to time while insured thereunder change the beneficiary, without the consent of any previously designated beneficiary, by a written request signed by the Employee and filed with the Employer.'

On April 1, 1964, Evelyn Flowers and James H. Flowers, Jr., entered into an agreement and property settlement under the terms of which Evelyn Flowers was vested with fee simple title to certain items of household furniture and fixtures and to an automobile. Under the terms of said property settlement it was agreed that James H. Flowers, Jr., was to pay to Evelyn Flowers the sum of $1,500 upon approval of the settlement agreement by the court and it was further agreed that upon approval of the settlement agreement by the court James H. Flowers, Jr., was to pay to Evelyn Flowers, the sum of $250 on May 1, 1964, and a like amount on the first day of each succeeding month until the death or remarriage of Evelyn Flowers.

In addition to the above, the said property settlement contained, among other provisions, the following:

'WHEREAS, on the 31st day of October, 1963, Party of the First Part filed her Bill of Complaint in this cause against Party of the Second Part, seeking the relief of separate maintenance and support for herself from and against Party of the Second Part; and

'WHEREAS, Party of the Second Part has filed his answer to said bill and said cause is now at issue, is set for trial and has been considered by both parties at great length and discussed with the respective attorneys for the parties; and

'WHEREAS, it is both feasible and desirable for the parties hereto to settle all their claims and controversies with respect to all claims and demands of every kind and character that each may have against the other, including all legal liability incident to or arising from the marriage relation of the parties and it is the present intention of the parties to settle, compromise and release each other from all claims and demands either of them has against the other, and the estate of each other, whether the same be property rights or rights of support, maintenance, alimony, dower or inheritance, and

'WHEREAS, Party of the First Part is 59 years of age, Party of the Second Part is 63 years of age, they have been married to each other for a period of 37 years, both are well educated and both have adequate legal representation in this case and have had such legal representation and advice in connection with this agreement and property settlement; and

'WHEREAS, it is the desire and intention of both of said parties, regardless of whether the marriage stands or is dissolved by divorce, to make an adequate, full and complete and final agreement and property settlement with each other that will be fully binding on both parties between themselves, in this pending cause and in any further proceedings between the parties, including a suit for divorce.

'NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and of the recitals set forth above, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties as follows:

'(6) This agreement and property settlement shall be filed in this cause and if approved by the Court shall become binding, conclusive and final as to both parties hereto, and their estates, their heirs, administrators, executors and assigns, and shall end this case and the Court shall not retain any further jurisdiction of this case for any later change at any later time, regardless of any change of circumstances of any kind which may occur between the parties.

'(8) * * * that although Party of the Second Part (James H. Flowers, Jr.) contends that he was in no way responsible for said separation, he has been advised by Party of the First Part that she expects to file divorce proceedings against him sometime after October 5, 1964, charging him with voluntary abandonment and it is agreed that regardless of the outcome of said case on a trial thereof, that this agreement shall be filed therein and shall completely govern the matters covered herein as between said parties and shall be final and conclusive of the matters covered herein, and shall be made a part of any decree that may be rendered therein and the decree that is rendered in said case shall be final and not left subject to change at any later date and the Court shall not retain jurisdiction in said decree in said case. Adequate provision has been made herein for counsel and attorney's fees of Party of the Forst Part and she hereby agrees and binds herself and that no further claim will be made against Party of the Second Part, in this pending case, in said divorce case, or otherwise, and hereby firmly and finally releases Party of the Second Part of any and all further claim or obligation in connection therewith, but it is further agreed that if a decree of divorce is granted in favor of Party of the First Part that the court cost shall be taxed against Party of the Second Part.

'(9) That upon approval of this agreement by the Court each of the parties hereto irrevocably releases the other from any claim or demand against the other, including any claim for alimony, maintenance and support, and each relinquishes all marital and other rights in and to all real, personal and mixed property, now owned or which may hereafter be acquired by the other and all income, gifts to or inheritance by the other, except as set forth herein.

'(10) This Agreement and Property Settlement is entire and complete and embodies all understandings and agreements between the parties and no other representations, agreements, undertakings or warranties of any kind or character have been made by either of the parties to the other to induce the signing of this agreement and each of the parties hereto agrees not to assert anything to the contrary; that there is no other agreement oral or written, existing between them; and that no oral settlement or prior written matter made extrinsic to this agreement shall have any force or effect.'

On April 2, 1964, the Circuit Court of Houston County entered a final decree awarding separate maintenance and support to Evelyn Flowers and ratifying the property settlement entered into by Evelyn Flowers and James H. Flowers, Jr., on April 1, 1964.

On October 7, 1964, Evelyn Flowers filed suit for divorce against her husband, James H. Flowers, Jr. On November 20, 1964, a final divorce decree was rendered granting an absolute divorce to Evelyn Flowers. In said divorce decree the aforementioned agreement and property settlement was further ratified by the trial court and by reference was made a part of the divorce decree.

Neither Evelyn Flowers nor James H. Flowers, Jr., remarried prior to the latter's death on November 11, 1965. He had not exercised his right to change, by written request filed with his employer, the beneficiary named in the certificate of insurance issued by Provident wherein he was the named insured.

On November 17, 1965, Quin E. Flowers, Jr., and Samuel M. Torrence, Jr., were appointed administrators of the estate of James H. Flowers, Jr., deceased.

The said administrators filed a claim with Provident wherein they southt to have paid to them as administrators of the estate of James E. Flowers, Jr., the proceeds of the insurance certificate. Evelyn Flowers took the position that as the named beneficiary in the said certificate she was entitled to the proceeds thereof, and filed a claim to that effect with Provident.

Provident having failed and refused to pay the proceeds of the subject insurance certificate to the administrators of the estate of James H. Flowers, Jr., deceased, or to Evelyn Flowers, the latter on January 5, 1966, instituted this proceeding in the Circuit Court of Houston County, in Equity, against Provident as a stakeholder and against Quin E. Flowers, Jr., and Samuel M....

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Thomas v. Thomas
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • July 17, 2009
    ...or interest under the policy but only an expectancy which becomes vested only upon the death of the insured.” (citing Flowers v. Flowers, 284 Ala. 230, 224 So.2d 590 (1969))); see also Barfoot v. Barfoot, 245 Ala. 593, 594, 18 So.2d 465, 465 (1944) (“The interests of the named beneficiary i......
  • Jenkins v. Lovelady
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 1, 1973
    ...the said certificate nor had it otherwise recognized her as the beneficiary on its records. Appellee cites our case of Flowers v. Flowers, 284 Ala. 230, 224 So.2d 590, where it is said, in part, as 'The provisions in the certificate of insurance relative to the manner in which a change of b......
  • Walden v. Walden
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • December 6, 1996
    ...the marriage, the right of the beneficiary to receive proceeds pursuant to the policy is not affected by a divorce. Flowers v. Flowers, 284 Ala. 230, 224 So.2d 590 (1969). See also, Jenkins v. Lovelady, 290 Ala. 25, 273 So.2d 189 (1973). This rule has been expanded in Ex parte Pitts, 435 So......
  • Aderholt v. McDonald
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • December 16, 2016
    ...has no impact on one spouse's status as the beneficiary of the other spouse's life-insurance policy.3 In Flowers v. Flowers, 284 Ala. 230, 237–38, 224 So.2d 590, 596–97 (1969), this Court rejected an attempt by the administrators of the deceased ex-husband's estate to claim the proceeds of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT