Meherin v. Meherin

Decision Date25 September 1950
Citation222 P.2d 305,99 Cal.App.2d 596
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesMEHERIN v. MEHERIN. Civ. 17600.

Charles C. Morrison, West Los Angeles, for appellant.

Canfield & Westwick, Santa Barbara, for respondent.

DORAN, Justice.

This is an appeal from the judgment; the record on appeal is the judgment roll only.

The facts as recited in appellant's brief are as follows:

'The defendant, Florence Meherin and decedent, John B. Meherin were married on June 1, 1916, at Bakersfield, California.

'That said John B. Meherin died on or about December 2, 1944 leaving said Florence Meherin as his surviving widow.

'That on or about the 28th day of August, 1918, the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued its policy of insurance on the life of said John B. Meherin and agreeing to pay on receipt of due proof of the death of said insured, the sum of $1,000.00 to the beneficiary named therein, Florence Meherin, the wife of said John B. Meherin.

'That at all times since said policy of insurance was issued, and at the time of the death of said John B. Meherin, said Florence Meherin, wife of decedent, was the named beneficiary of said policy of life insurance herein referred to.

'That the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company paid the sum of $1,324.18 into Court as proceeds of said insurance policy and the action as to said company was dismissed.

'That on or about the 28th day of July, 1942, said John B. Meherin and said Florence Meherin entered into an agreement settling their rights as to their community property and creating a division of the same, by the terms of which the policy of insurance herein involved was assigned to john B. Meherin.

'That the portion of the agreement by which said policy of insurance was assigned to John B. Meherin reads as follows:

'1. The wife hereby released to the husband and he shall be entitled to all the interest in and to that certain insurance policy with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, bearing the number 918996-7-7, and the wife does hereby grant, assign and sell to the husband all of her right, title and interest in and to said policy and the interest and benefits therein. Wife further agrees to execute any instrument or documents required by the husband or the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to carry out the intention of this paragraph.

'The jusband, John V. Meherin executed a will on December 2, 1944, the day of his death, in which he left all of his property to his brother, Thomas J. Meherin, plaintiff and respondent herein.

'That the estate of John B. Meherin was probated in the County of Kern, State of California, and on the 29th day of September, 1947, all of the property and estate of John B. Meherin, deceased, was distributed to Thomas J. Meherin, the respondent.

'While not raised by the pleadings, the Court found that it was the intention and belief of John B. Meherin that Florence Meherin would take no part of the proceeds of said policy, either as beneficiary or otherwise.

'Florence Meherin claims the proceeds of said insurance as the beneficiary named in said policy on the date of death of the insured.

'Thomas J. Meherin claims the proceeds of said insurance under the decree of distribution dated September 29, 1947.'

It is appellant's contention that,

'1. The Court's interpretation of the property agreement was unreasonable.

'2. The Court erred in finding as to the belief and intent of one of the parties only.

'3. Appellant was not deprived of her right to receive the proceeds of the insurance as the named beneficiary.

'4. The findings of fact do...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Buchman's Estate, In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 1 Abril 1955
    ...as part of her interest in the community property and as such released [by the agreement] in favor of the husband.' In Meherin v. Meherin, 99 Cal.App.2d 596, 222 P.2d 305, a husband and wife made a property settlement agreement in which the wife released to her husband her interest in a cer......
  • Life Insurance Co. of North America v. Cassidy
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 19 Marzo 1984
    ...policy. The other cases cited by the majority fail to support their interpretation of the Cassidys' agreement. In Meherin v. Meherin (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 596, 597, 222 P.2d 305, the language by which the wife was found to have waived her right as a beneficiary released " 'all the interest i......
  • Baekgaard v. Carreiro, 14750.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 8 Diciembre 1956
    ...agreements see: Thorp v. Randazzo, 41 Cal.2d 770, 264 P.2d 38; Grimm v. Grimm, 26 Cal.2d. 173, 157 P.2d 841; Meherin v. Meherin, 99 Cal.App.2d 596, 222 P.2d 305; Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Quay, D.C., 115 F.Supp. 63; United Benefit Life Insurance Co. v. Price, 46 Wash.2d 587, 28......
  • United Ben. Life Ins. Co. v. Price
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 5 Mayo 1955
    ...The named beneficiary's position on this appeal is, we think, fairly stated in the following excerpt from Meherin v. Meherin, 1950, 99 Cal.App.2d 596, 222 P.2d 305, 306: "A wife as beneficiary under an insurance policy retains her status as such unless it clearly appears from the agreement ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Divorce Complications in Estates and Estate Planning: Together With the Unraveling of Common Provisions for the Former Spouse
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Trusts & Estates Quarterly (CLA) No. 10-4, June 2004
    • Invalid date
    ...121 Cal.App.2d 176 (1953)(all of which found no termination); Sullivan v. Union Oil Co., 16 Cal.2d 229 (1940); Meherin v. Meherin, 99 Cal.App.2d 596 (1950); Thorp v. Randazzo, 41 Cal.2d 770, 774-776 (1953); First Western Bank & T. Co. v. Omizzolo, 176 Cal.App.2d 555 (1959) (all of which fou......
  • Term Life Insurance Since in Re Marriage of Burwell (2013)
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association Family Law News (CLA) No. 38-4, December 2016
    • Invalid date
    ...beneficiary status after the final Judgment? YES—WAIVER LANGUAGE.[Page 14]What is good Waiver Language: See Meherin v Meherin (1950) 99 Cal. App. 2d 596; Life Insurance Company of N. America v. Cassidy (1984) 35 Cal. 3d. 599 and In re Marriage of Ortiz (2008) 535 F.3d 990.Waiver must name t......

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