In re Volk
Decision Date | 09 August 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No. 16–10592–JNF |
Citation | 571 B.R. 510 |
Parties | IN RE Anthony J. VOLK, Debtor |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Massachusetts |
Roger Stanford, Lang, Xifaras & Bullard, New Bedford, MA, for Debtor.
Adam J. Ruttenberg, Justin Kesselman, Posternak Blankstein & Lund LLP, Boston, MA, for Trustee.
Paula R.C. Bachtell, U.S. Department of Justice, Boston, MA, for Assistant U.S. Trustee.
The matter before the Court is the Trustee's Objection to Amended Schedule C filed by Anthony J. Volk (the "Debtor") on March 23, 2017 through which he claimed an exemption in a Guardian Life Insurance Policy with a value in the amount of $23,527.27 pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 125. The Court heard the matter on April 28, 2017, and the parties agreed to file an Agreed Statement of Facts and briefs with respect to the issue presented.
The material facts necessary to resolve the Trustee's Objection are not in dispute and neither party requested an evidentiary hearing. The Court now makes the following findings of fact and rulings of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52, made applicable to this proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052. The legal issue presented is whether the value of the whole life insurance policy, referred to in the Objection as the "Second Guardian Policy" and identified on the Debtor's schedules as "Guardian Life $23,527.27," can be claimed by the Debtor as exempt pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws c. 175, § 125.
Following the April 28, 2017 hearing, the parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts which the Court now paraphrases.
The Debtor filed a Chapter 7 petition on February 24, 2016. The Trustee was appointed Chapter 7 trustee on February 25, 2016. The Debtor is the owner of a whole life insurance policy issued in 2001 by The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, namely the Second Guardian Policy. The Debtor scheduled the Second Guardian Policy in his bankruptcy schedules as having a cash surrender value of $23,527.27. The original and only beneficiary of the Second Guardian Policy was and remains The Volk Family Revocable Trust u/d/t dated November 11, 1993 (the "Trust"). The grantors of the Trust were the Debtor and his deceased spouse, Patricia M. Volk. Deborah A. Volk and Kari M. Volk, identified in the Trust, are the daughters of the Debtor. Deborah A. Volk also is known as Debra A. Volk–Beaulieu. Warren A. Volk, identified in the Trust, is the son of the Debtor. Ian E. Anderson, also identified in the Trust, is the son of Patricia M. Volk and the stepson of the Debtor.
On or about December 9, 1993, the Debtor and Patricia M. Volk executed the First Amendment to the Trust. On March 13, 1995, Patricia M. Volk died. On or about October 13, 2004, the Debtor executed a Second Amendment to the Trust.1
The Debtor initially claimed the Second Guardian Policy as exempt in its entirety pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws c. 175, § 119A. He subsequently filed an amended Schedule C on March 23, 2107, claiming the Second Guardian Policy as exempt in its entirety pursuant to, and only pursuant to, Mass. Gen. Laws c. 175, § 125. The Trustee timely filed the Objection to the Debtor's claimed exemption in the Second Guardian Policy.
The Trustee references In re Chevalier , 330 B.R. 21 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2005), In re Sloss , 279 B.R. 6 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2002), and In re CRS Steam, Inc. , 217 B.R. 365 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1998), in support of her argument that § 125 of ch. 175 requires that the beneficiary must "(1) have been the original beneficiary when the policy was "effected;" (2) be an entity other than the owner; and (3) have an insurable interest in the insured."See Chevalier , 330 B.R. at 25 (quoting Sloss , 279 B.R. at 14 ). In Chevalier , the court determined that "the mere designation of a probate estate as beneficiary disqualifies a policy from that statutory exemption." 330 B.R. at 25.
The Trustee further argues:
(footnote omitted).2
The Debtor argues that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 125 protects the lawful beneficiary from claims of creditors of the insured. Citing In re Beach , 8 F.Supp. 910, 911–12 (D. Mass. 1934), and McCarthy v. Griffin , 299 Mass. 309, 310–11, 12 N.E.2d 836, 837 (1938), he argues that he did not change the beneficiary of the Second Guardian Policy. Acknowledging that there are limitations to the protections afforded by § 125 for premiums paid in fraud of creditors, the Debtor, citing CRS Steam, Inc. , further argues that the requirement that the beneficiary named in the policy have an insurable interest has been satisfied as the Trust beneficiaries are the Debtor's children and stepson.
In addition, the Debtor argues that the Trust was established in 1993 and there has been no change in beneficiaries, despite two amendments, one which clarified the name of the Debtor's second wife, and the other reflected the death of the Debtor's spouse and maintenance of the existing beneficiaries. The Debtor stated:
Unlike a probate estate which can be avoided or changed in many fashions, the Trust beneficiaries of the Volk Family Revocable Trust have not changed and Mr. Volk as Trustee owes a fiduciary obligation to the beneficiaries. Section 125 applies only to policies in favor of another in the case cited by the Trustee. Judge Boroff [in Chevalier ] indicated that the Debtor who designated his probate estate as beneficiary of the life insurance policy was in substance naming himself [sic] as beneficiary and not an entity other than the Debtor.
Although not specifically labeled an exemption statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 125 provides significant protections for beneficiaries of life insurance policies from creditors of the insured. It provides:
Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 175, § 125 (emphasis supplied). Although there are a limited number of state court decisions interpreting Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 125, the Supreme Judicial Court in Rosenberg v. Robbins , 289 Mass. 402, 194 N.E. 291 (1935), addressed whether a creditor of the defendants, Robbins and Siegel, could reach and apply the beneficiaries' interest in life insurance policies to satisfy the defendants' obligations. The Supreme Judicial Court held that "[t]he provisions of G.L. c. 175, §§ 125, 126, as amended, prevent the plaintiff from reaching and applying to the payment of her note the cash surrender value of the policies." 289 Mass. at 406, 194 N.E. at 293. See also In re Caron , 305 B.R. 614, 616 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2004).
In In re CRS Steam, Inc. , 217 B.R. 365 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1998), the court considered whether the debtor, Thomas F. LeBlanc, whose case was jointly administered with that of CRS Steam, Inc., could exempt a whole life...
To continue reading
Request your trial