Krueger v. Krueger

• Decision Date: 21 February 1979
• Docket Number: Docket No. 78-1637
• Citation: 278 N.W.2d 514,88 Mich.App. 722
• Parties: Beverly I. KRUEGER, Plaintiff, v. Charles H. KRUEGER, Defendant, and Mary S. Krueger, Interpleader Defendant-Appellant, and Michael A. Krueger, Interpleader Defendant-Appellee. 88 Mich.App. 722, 278 N.W.2d 514
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 514

278 N.W.2d 514

Beverly I. KRUEGER, Plaintiff, v. Charles H. KRUEGER, Defendant and Mary S. Krueger, Interpleader Defendant-Appellant and Michael A. Krueger, Interpleader Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 78-1637.

88 Mich.App. 722, 278 N.W.2d 514

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Feb. 21, 1979.

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1979.

Released for Publication May 29, 1979.

[88 MICHAPP 723] Joseph, Wolf & Weinstein by Jeffrey J. Endean, Saginaw, for Charles and Mary Krueger.

Hoffman & Rubenstein by Gilbert Y. Rubenstein, Flint, for Metro. Life.

Martin & Martin by Walter Martin, Saginaw, for Beverly and Michael Krueger.

Before T. M. BURNS, P. J., and WALSH and HOLBROOK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Beverly and Charles Krueger were divorced in August of 1970. During the pendency of the suit the parties reached an agreement covering all matters pertaining to alimony, property rights, and custody and support of their adopted son. The agreement was dictated on the record and approved by the circuit court. The terms of the [88 MICHAPP 724] agreement were incorporated in the judgment of divorce subsequently entered.

Part of the agreement incorporated in the judgment required Charles to change the beneficiary on a group life insurance policy obtained through his employer from his former wife, Beverly to their son Michael Krueger, until Michael reached the age of 21 years or graduated from college. This obligation was not tied to the support duties or otherwise conditioned.

Charles made the change in beneficiary as agreed. However, on April 7, 1976, Charles changed the beneficiary to Mary S. Krueger, his mother. At that time Michael was 18 years old. Charles died on May 21, 1977. On that date his mother was the named beneficiary.

Both Michael and Charles' mother claimed the proceeds of the life insurance policy, amounting to some $43,100. Michael filed a petition in the divorce action seeking to enforce his right to the proceeds under the agreement and judgment. The insurance company filed an interpleader action in the same circuit to determine the rights to the insurance proceeds between the contesting parties. After the proceeds were deposited in court, the insurance company was discharged from liability and the interpleader action was consolidated with the petition in the divorce case.

No evidence was introduced in the court below. The only question submitted was whether the oral agreement, as embodied in the judgment, requiring Charles to maintain Michael as the beneficiary was enforceable against the named beneficiary. The trial court, in a written opinion, concluded that it was. Mary S. Krueger appeals. We affirm.

We have no quarrel with the proposition that the circuit court has no jurisdiction in a divorce [88 MICHAPP 725] case to compel a party to convey property or a property interest to a third person, even a child of the parties, or to adjudicate claims of third parties. The Supreme Court has so held on many occasions. See, E. g., Yedinak v. Yedinak, 383 Mich. 409, 175 N.W.2d 706, 63 A.L.R.3d 360 (1970), Rex v. Rex, 331 Mich. 399, 49 N.W.2d 348 (1951). Were this an appeal or separate suit by the husband attacking the judgment after such a disposition had been forced on him, we would probably be required to hold in his favor. Flynn v. Flynn, 367 Mich. 625, 116 N.W.2d 907 (1962).

But, neither of those propositions is applicable here. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the parties in a divorce case may make a settlement of their interests which the court could confirm even if it could not make such a disposition if the case were contested. Newton v. Security National Bank of Battle Creek, 324 Mich. 344, 37 N.W.2d 130 (1949). In our view, this is what occurred here. The wife took no alimony and the child support was in an amount less than that recommended by the Friend of the Court. She gave up something she was entitled to in exchange for a benefit to her child. Under these circumstances many courts have held that the agreement embodied in the judgment will be enforced even if the court would have had no power to order the same disposition in a contested case. Anno: Divorce: Provision in Decree That One Party Obtain or Maintain Life Insurance for Benefit of Other Party or Child, 59 A.L.R.3d 9, §...