Matter of Perkins
Decision Date | 16 March 1981 |
Docket Number | Bankruptcy No. 3-80-01275. |
Citation | 9 BR 809 |
Parties | In the Matter of Pauline (NMI) PERKINS, Debtor. |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Joseph C. Brucker, Springfield, Ohio, for debtor.
James R. Warren, Springfield, Ohio, Trustee.
DECISION AND ORDER
Pauline Perkins filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy on 7 May 1980. Among assets scheduled was a life insurance policy (No. 97253) on her life with Commonwealth Life Insurance Company, naming as beneficiary her ex-husband and a policy (Certificate No. 5000160) on her life with Modern Woodmen of America, also naming as beneficiary her ex-husband. These policies were claimed as exempt pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code Sections 2329.66(A)(6)(b) and 2329.66(A)(6)(d).
On 30 June 1980 James R. Warren, the Trustee in Bankruptcy, filed an objection to these claimed exemptions. On 11 July 1980, the Debtor filed an amended claim of exemption for the policies, adding Ohio Revised Code Sections 3921.18 and 3911.10; and, a motion to strike Trustee's objections, which was set for hearing on 15 August 1980.
On 14 July 1980, the Trustee filed an objection to the amended claims of exemptions.
The total cash surrender value of both policies in question is in the total amount of $1,170.41 and the named beneficiary was never changed after the divorce of the Debtor.
The life insurance contract (certificate of insurance) with Modern Woodmen was purchased in the same fashion as the Commonwealth policy; namely, on solicitation of insurance agents. At the time of the purchase of the Modern Woodmen policy, the Debtor was never made aware of being a member of any society. Furthermore, she has never participated in any lodge system activities, or ever knew that any ritualistic society even exists. She merely paid her premium charges when due and considered her life insurance in effect as such. The fact that she automatically became a member of a society by purchasing insurance was never brought to her attention.
According to the Debtor, she never heard of or participated in any type of initiation or any ceremony after dealing with the insurance agent for the purpose of purchasing life insurance. She has never been contacted by or in contact with, any officials or members of any fraternal society.
The policy was physically enclosed in a storage envelope provided by the insurer, with logo and printed virtues recited thereon, such as "Modern Woodmen of America, Rock Island, Illinois . . . since 1883 Life Insurance for the entire family;" and and, "your life insurance contract is valuable property and was purchased to cover the following: Clean up fund — readjustment income — mortgage cancellation — retirement income — education — family security — juvenile insurance — savings."
The documentary evidence, nevertheless, reflects a fraternal society image and format. Modern Woodmen was authorized by the State of Ohio Department of Insurance "to transact in this State, in accordance with the laws thereof . . . the business of Fraternal Insurance as prescribed in the statutes of the State of Ohio."
The 1978 Revision of By-Laws provides, inter alia, that the principal office of Modern Woodmen of America shall be at the city and county of Rock Island, Illinois, and, as follows:
The Articles of Incorporation specifies, as follows:
The documentary evidence adduced was obtained from Modern Woodmen, after the Trustee's objection, and no such material as the By-Laws and purposes of the organization had ever been seen by the Debtor prior to that time. The Debtor, upon being examined by the Trustee at the first meeting of creditors testified she was not a member of the society.
The certificate of life insurance issued to Pauline Perkins, however, is a typical "legal reserve basis" life insurance contract and in no manner confers any social or other benefits, as recited by the By-Laws. If the insured does not pay her premiums, she then is no longer a "member".
In analyzing the questions of law, it must initially be observed that the question of whether Modern Woodmen of America is legally operating in the State of Ohio as a fraternal benefit society is not a viable issue. By comparing the wording of Ohio Revised Code Section 3921.01 to the Articles of Incorporation, we note very meticulous use of the same semantics. It is obvious that the incorporators were acutely aware of statutory requirements.1 The thrust of the Trustee's position in this regard need not be explored in detail because of evidence to the contrary, and can be dismissed.
The issue raised of whether or not the life insurance policy ("One-Parent Family Certificate") is exempt cannot be dismissed so readily. This question is fundamentally to be resolved as an interpretation of the Ohio exemption statutes and the rights of the Debtor and her creditors in an insolvency context, without regard to the insurer, (which supplied the documentary evidence without becoming a party to the litigation).
The primary authority upon which Debtor relies is a case precedent under Minnesota law. In the Matter of Heideman, (1975) 5 C.B.C. 518, 1 B.C.D. 1157. This well reasoned decision is worthy of note, even though rendered before adoption of the current Ohio exemption statutes (enacted in haste, to "opt out" of the 1978 Bankruptcy Code federal exemptions) because of at least superficial resemblance to the Ohio statutes pertaining to fraternal benefit societies and an apparent uniformity evolved in such state statutes nationally.
The case precedents relied upon in Heideman place great emphasis upon "the worthy and benevolent design made so prominent in organizations of this character, realizing that the fund accumulated by assessment upon the living was for the relief and assistance of the families of deceased members, not for the benefit of creditors . . ."
There can be little doubt that the underlying, basic...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Diodati, Bankruptcy No. 80-00809-HL
...notion in American jurisprudence can be traced back to the English case of Lieure v. Gould, 1 Q.B. 491 (1893), wherein the court stated: 9 BR 809 Again, a man must be said to have fraudulent mind if he recklessly makes a statement intending it to be acted upon, and not caring whether it be ......