Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Baker

• Decision Date: 01 August 2013
• Docket Number: No. 4:11-CV-1789 CAS,4:11-CV-1789 CAS
• Parties: METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff, v. MARY BAKER, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff,
v.
MARY BAKER, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:11-CV-1789 CAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Dated: August 1, 2013

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter is before the Court following a one-day bench trial held on April 8, 2013. This is a dispute over the proceeds of a Metropolitan Life Insurance Company policy issued to decedent Troy L. Baker, Sr. The main issue for determination is whether Mr. Baker was mentally competent to execute a change of beneficiary designation in March 1991 that changed the sole beneficiary of the Policy from his daughter, defendant and cross-plaintiff Deborah A. Baker, to his former spouse, defendant and cross-defendant Mary Baker, and whether Mary Baker unduly influenced Mr. Baker's actions. Having considered the pleadings, trial testimony and exhibits, the Court hereby makes and enters the following findings of fact ands conclusions of law, in accordance with Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife") filed a Complaint in Interpleader ("Complaint") in this Court on October 13, 2011, naming as defendants Mary Baker, Deborah A. Baker, and Troy L. Baker, Jr. (Complaint in Interpleader, Doc. 1).

Page 2

2. At issue are the proceeds of a MetLife life insurance policy issued to Troy L. Baker, Sr. (sometimes referred to as "Mr. Baker") in the principal amount of $13,988.00. (Doc. 1-1, Ex. A, Part 1 to MetLife's Complaint in Interpleader).

3. The MetLife policy (the "Policy") was issued to Mr. Baker in connection with his employment with General Motors Corporation, and pursuant to an employee welfare benefit plan established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA") 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq.

4. The MetLife Summary Plan Description ("SPD") establishes the right of a Plan participant such as Mr. Baker to name his or her beneficiary, and states that benefits will be paid to the beneficiary. (Doc. 1-2 at 42, Ex. A Part 2 to Complaint in Interpleader).

5. The most recent Beneficiary Designation form on file with MetLife is dated March 7, 1991 and designates defendant Mary Baker as the sole primary beneficiary of the life insurance benefits at issue. (Trial Ex. B).

6. The prior beneficiary designation form on file with MetLife is dated July 22, 1990 and designates defendant Deborah Baker as the sole primary beneficiary of the life insurance benefits at issue. (Trial Ex. C).

7. The next prior beneficiary designation form on file with MetLife was signed on June 28, 1988 and designates defendants Deborah Baker and Mary Baker as coequal primary beneficiaries of the life insurance benefits at issue. (Trial Ex. D).

8. Mr. Baker died on December 26, 2009 when the Policy was in full force and effect. Shortly thereafter, Mary Baker submitted a statement of claim to MetLife for the insurance proceeds pursuant to the most recent beneficiary designation which Mr. Baker executed on March 7, 1991. (Complaint at ¶¶ 14-16).

Page 3

9. Mr. Baker's adult children, Deborah Baker and Troy Baker, Jr., sent a letter to MetLife accusing Mary Baker of fraud and requesting that MetLife withhold payment of the Policy proceeds to Mary on that basis. (Doc. 1-8, Ex. G to Complaint).

10. After receiving the letter, MetLife filed its Complaint in Interpleader and deposited the Policy proceeds and accrued interest into the Court registry, and has been dismissed from the case. (See Order of Feb. 15, 2012 (Doc. 17) and Preliminary Order in Interpleader and for Dismissal and Discharge of Apr. 24, 2012) (Doc. 26)).

11. Deborah Baker and Troy Baker, Jr. filed a Cross Claim against Mary Baker alleging that Mr. Baker was suffering from Alzheimer's disease when he made Mary Baker his beneficiary on March 7, 1991, that Mary unduly influenced him and, accordingly, the beneficiary designation to Mary is void. (Cross Claim, Doc. 9, ¶ 15).

12. Mr. Baker and Mary Baker were married from June 1983 until April 1990 when they divorced. (Tr. Transcript at 3, ll. 1-12).

13. Mary Baker testified that the divorce was caused because Mr. Baker wanted to move to Moberly, Missouri, where some of his family lived, and she was unable to do that. (Trial Tr. at 33, ll. 10-17). Mary testified that she had begun seeing differences in Mr. Baker after five or six years of marriage, including that he was forgetful and she thought he might have a nervous breakdown after serving as executor of his father's estate. (Id. at 32, ll. 17-25 to 33, ll. 1-6). Mary testified that she "told him I would give him a divorce, but I wanted him to first go the doctor and find out what was going on with him." (Id., ll. 18-23).

14. In January 1990, Mr. Baker underwent a psychiatric evaluation at Barnes Jewish Hospital. The evaluation report states that his chief complaint was "trouble remembering things." (Tr. Ex. 1 at 3). The report states that Mary Baker reported that beginning four years prior, Mr.

Page 4

Baker began having "slowly progressive difficulties with memory and thinking." (Id.) The report provides these details concerning the history of Mr. Baker's condition:

These problems have continued to the point now that Mr. Baker gets mixed up writing checks, while working with machinery in the house (he doesn't remember where the switch is to turn it off), he doesn't remember where the phones are, he needs to figure out how to turn off the hose, he forgets where he left his car, he may forget where he was driving if it is out of the neighborhood. His remote memory is also not as good as it used to be, although we do not have good confirmation since his wife has only been married to him for 6 years. The patient saw Dr. Richard Sohn approximately one and one-half to two years ago who reported that a CT Scan and EEG was normal.
In addition to the memory problems, his wife reports that his judgement [sic] is not as good as it used to be in terms of problem solving. She reports that he is not aware of the date and not as good with remembering dates of events. He also gets confused over the ages of his children. Mr. Baker still is able to take care of his own bodily functions and does dress himself though it takes him a long time. He is still interested in his hobbies of tinkering, reading the newspaper and watching TV, although he is not as good at fixing things as he had been in the past.

(Tr. Ex. 1 at 3; Tr. at 25, ll. 5-25 to 26, ll. 1-18).

15. Mr. Baker's psychiatric evaluation report of January 1990 stated the following under the heading of "Mental Status Examination":

The patient is a mildly upset, nervous appearing man who appears slightly older than his stated age of 56. His flow of speech reveals a normal rate, normal rhythm, no loose associations of flight of ideas. He does have word-finding difficulties. His affect is mildly upset, but not depressed. No suicidal or homicidal ideation. He did get upset when his wife and I talked outside the room while he was clock drawing (because he didn't want us talking behind his back). Thought content without delusions, hallucinations or any Schneiderian symptoms. Oriented x 2. Memory and orientation: Short Blessed Test, 17 errors out of possible 28 (missed month, backward numbers, month backwards and only remembered John brown of the John Brown phrase).

(Tr. Ex. 1 at 4).

Page 5

16. Mr. Baker's psychiatric evaluation report of January 1990 concluded with the "Impression" of "History consistent with DAT" [Dementia of the Alzheimer's Type]. (Tr. Ex. 1 at 4).

17. Mary Baker testified that the evaluating doctor did not say Mr. Baker needed to be treated for Alzheimer's related issues (Tr. at 25, ll. 2-4), and in January 1990, Mr. Baker did not show any signs of confusion about who his family members were, the names of his children and grandchildren, how many children or grandchildren he had, or the nature and extent of the property he owned. (Trial Tr. at 26, ll. 19-25 to 27 at ll. 1-14).

18. Mary Baker testified that following the divorce, Mr. Baker continued to live with her in her home in Festus, Missouri until June 1990, including a ten-day period while Mary was out of town, during which he took care of the house, including mowing the grass, and helped a neighbor build rabbit hutches. (Tr. at 34, ll. 4-10). Mary testified that she and Mr. Baker "liked each other, you know, we had no animosity toward each other," even after the divorce. (Tr. at 34, ll. 22-25).

19. In June 1990, Mr. Baker told his daughter, Deborah Baker, that he wanted to come live with her in her home in North Carolina. Deborah Baker traveled to Missouri and moved Mr. Baker to North Carolina. (Tr. at 60, ll 1-25 to 61, ll. 1-14). Mr. Baker lived with Deborah for almost three months and then moved into a rental town home next door where he lived alone. (Tr. at 61, ll. 15-22). Deborah Baker's teenage sons would often, but not always, spend the night with him. (Tr. at 65, ll. 5-14).

20. Mr. Baker had a bank account while he lived in North Carolina, and Deborah Baker was on the account with him. (Tr. at 63, ll. 13-23). Mr. Baker went to adult day care four days a week while he was in North Carolina. (Tr. at 64, ll. 1-8). On weekends, Mr. Baker often...