Kauppi v. Dow Chemical Co., Docket No. 12141

• Decision Date: 01 May 1972
• Docket Number: No. 3,Docket No. 12141,3
• Citation: 40 Mich.App. 448,198 N.W.2d 897
• Parties: Mary H. KAUPPI, Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-Appellee, v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, v. Margaret A. KAUPPI, Third-Party Defendant-Cross-Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF MIDLAND, Third-Party Defendant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 897

198 N.W.2d 897

40 Mich.App. 448

Mary H. KAUPPI, Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-Appellee, v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, v. Margaret A. KAUPPI, Third-Party Defendant-Cross-Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF MIDLAND,

Third-Party Defendant.

Docket No. 12141.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

May 1, 1972.

Released for Publication July 17, 1972.

Joel H. Kahn, Midland, for Margaret Kauppi.

Cook, Nash, Deibel & Borrello, Saginaw, for Mary Kauppi.

Before J. H. GILLIS, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and DANHOF, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is a dispute between a first wife and a second wife over who was entitled to 25% Of the funds accumulated by the deceased husband in a profit-sharing plan. When the husband and the first wife were divorced, the decree provided in part:

'It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiff shall share in twenty-five per cent (25%) of the benefits that theDefendant will receive by virtue of certain retirement pension, and profit sharing plans described as: Dow Corning Corporation Supplemental Retirement Plan and The Dow Chemical Company Pension and Profit-Sharing Plan, and any other Plan under the terms of which the Defendant is entitled to benefit upon retirement. Provided, however, that shall the Plaintiff predecease the retirement of the Defendant, then this provision shall become inoperative. Provided further, that any payments being made to her shall cease upon her death. Her Death Certificate shall act to cancel all her rights in said Pension Plan. The Defendant shall forthwith execute whatever documents that may be required to make this provision effective.'

Upon his retirement in 1967 the husband received a lump sum award and monthly benefits from the pension plan. It is agreed that the first wife, third-party defendant, Margaret A. Kauppi, received 25% Of these amounts. These payments were deducted from the husband's balance in the pension plan. The trial court found, which is sustained by the record, that the right of the husband to receive monthly benefits for the rest of his life was not dependent on his having a balance in the pension plan. However, the terms of the plan provided that if the husband should die before his credit in the fund had been depleted by the monthly payments the remainder, if any, would be paid to his named beneficiary. The husband died in 1968 and prior thereto had named plaintiff, second wife, Mary H. Kauppi, as...