Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hendrick, 53.
| Decision Date | 02 December 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 53.,53. |
| Citation | 25 N.W.2d 189,316 Mich. 253 |
| Parties | MINNESOTA MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. HENDRICK et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County, in Chancery; Leonard D. Verdier, Judge.
Bill of interpleader by the Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company against Hazel Hendrick, formerly Hazel Holcomb, and Earl Louis McDougal, administrator of the estate of Darlene Holcomb, deceased, and Jesse D. Holcomb, administrator of the estate of Cecil Leo Holcomb, deceased, to determine the right to proceeds of a life insurance policy. From a decree in favor of Jesse D. Holcomb, administrator, Hazel Hendrick appeals.
Decree affirmed.
Before the Entire Bench
Johh M. Dunham and Leon B. Buer, both of Grand Rapids, for appellant, Hazel Hendrick.
John J. Smolenski, of Grand Rapids, for Estate of Cecil Leo Holcomb, deceased.
Plaintiff insurance company filed a bill of interpleader for a judicial determination as to whom it should pay the balance of the amount due on a policy for $1,000, issued on the life of Cecil Leo Holcomb, the decedent. Jesse D. Holcomb, administrator of decedent's estate, Earl Louis McDougal, administrator of the estate of Darlene Holcomb, deceased, and Hazel Hendrick (formerly Hazel Holcomb), all claimants, were named as defendants. The insurance company paid into court the sum of $866, the balance due on the policy after the deduction of the amount due on certain loans made to the insured. The court decreed that Jesse D. Holcomb, administrator of Cecil's estate, was entitled to the amount due. Hazel Hendrick is the sole appellant.
The policy was issued to decedent in 1932, his wife, Hazel Holcomb, being named as beneficiary therein. The policy contained a clause giving the insured the right to change the beneficiary. He never exercised this right by any writing. He made a loan on the policy, and later, after his wife secured a divorce from him, he borrowed an additional amount from the insurer. He failed to pay a premium, and the policy in accordance with its terms was extended to a time subsequent to his death.
On December 12, 1942, Hazel Holcomb obtained a divorce from decedent. It was taken pro confesso. Their only child, a son by adoption, was 15 years of age at the time of the divorce decree. The wife testified that there was no property to be divided except a small amount of furniture which she was willing to leave with decedent. The decree contained the usual clause requiring the husband to pay $1 in full satisfaction of all claims the wife had in all property the husband had or was interested in at that time or might thereafter acquire. Defendant Hazel Holcomb thereafter married Earl Hendrick. Cecil Leo Holcomb went to live with Darlene Holcomb in a common law marriage relationship. Darlene was the mother of three children by a former marriage. Holcomb, Darlene, and her children lost their lives in a fire which destroyed the home in which they were living.
Even if Darlene had been a beneficiary, there is sufficient evidence to show that Holcomb and Darlene did not die otherwise than simultaneously, and therefore the proceeds of any policy is distributed as if the insured had survived the beneficiary. Act No. 73, Pub. Acts 1941, Stat. Ann. § 27.3178 (624). The administrator of Darlene's estate has not appealed.
Hazel Hendrick, as sole appellant, contends that as she was the beneficiary in the policy, and there never was a change made, she is entitled to the proceeds. She points to the fact that after the divorce, when he secured an additional loan on the policy, he must have realized that she was still the beneficiary but did not choose to make any change. She also showed that he was insurance minded and must have thought of protecting the proper persons when subsequent to the divorce he took out a certificate under a group policy in which he first named his mother as beneficiary but later had it changed so as to name Darlene Holcomb, his wife, as beneficiary. Appellant claims that this indicates that decedent purposely did not change the beneficiary in the policy of which plaintiff was the insurer.
The trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lynch v. Bogenrief
...estate of the husband or to such named beneficiary as he shall affirmatively designate * * *.' See Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hendrick, 316 Mich. 253, 256, 25 N.W.2d 189, 191 (1946). None of these decisions is persuasive Finally, we have examined the provisions of the divorce decree to......
-
Murray v. United States
...the husband or to such named beneficiary as he shall affirmatively designate. * * *." Construed favorably in Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hendrick, 316 Mich. 253, 25 N.W.2d 189. But — and this is important — it is to be noted that in none of the states in which the above Conklin, Smith, ......
-
Cooley v. Cooley, 58.
...1929, § 12766, as amended by Act No. 220, Pub. Acts 1939, Stat.Ann.1947 Cum.Supp. § 25.131. See, also, Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hendrick, 316 Mich. 253, 25 N.W.2d 189. The court allowed plaintiff $25 per week alimony, out of the defendant's gross earnings of about $50 per week. She w......
-
McCoy v. McCoy, 38.
...the policies payable to defendant's estate or to such beneficiary or beneficiaries as he may designate. Minnesota Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hendrick, 316 Mich. 253, 25 N.W.2d 189. In order to obviate any questions, however, that might otherwise arise in the future the decree to be entered wil......