Morgan v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 1571.,1571. |
| Citation | 315 F. Supp. 213 |
| Parties | Fannalea M. MORGAN et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky |
James S. Greene, Jr., Harlan, Ky., for plaintiffs.
Joseph K. Beasley, Harlan, Ky., for defendants Martha Gunn, Bryant Liddell Morgan, and Dorcas Elizabeth Morgan.
George I. Cline, U. S. Atty., for defendant the United States.
This case arises out of conflicting claims to a National Service Life Insurance Policy in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) issued upon the life of Henry B. Morgan, Jr.
The policy of insurance was taken out in 1943 and was in force on the date of the death of the insured, on March 4, 1964. In the initial insurance application Martha Gunn Morgan was named as the beneficiary and the defendant's aunt, Mary Boone Tong, was named as contingent beneficiary. On October 12, 1951, Martha Gunn Morgan was again named as principal beneficiary and the decedent's children, Bryant Liddell Morgan and Dorcas Elizabeth Morgan, were named as contingent beneficiaries. This designation of beneficiaries was in force at the date of the death of the insured. In 1954 a third child was born to the decedent and his wife, Martha Gunn Morgan; namely, a daughter, Mary Boone Morgan.
The decedent and Martha Gunn Morgan separated in 1959 and on August 18, 1959, entered into a separation agreement and property settlement, which, inter alia, made provision relative to certain commercial policies of life insurance but was silent relative to the instant National Service Life Insurance Policy. On December 1, 1959, Martha Gunn Morgan and the decedent were divorced by judgment of the Harlan Circuit Court, duly made and entered, which judgment incorporated therein the hereinbefore referred to property settlement.
On January 13, 1961, the decedent married the plaintiff, Fannalea M. Morgan, and they lived together as husband and wife until the date of decedent's death. No children were born to the second marriage.
This action involves conflicting claims by the administrator of decedent's estate, his first wife, and his second wife, relative to the entitlement of each to the proceeds of the insurance policy in question.
The judgment of divorce contains the customary provision required by Kentucky law (K.R.S. 403.060) requiring each party to restore to the other such property not disposed of at the commencement of the action as either may have obtained from the other during marriage, in consideration or by reason thereof.
The Administrator of Veteran Affairs has heretofore held that the designated beneficiary, Martha Gunn Morgan, first wife of the decedent, is entitled to the proceeds of the insurance policy. The Administrator of his estate has contended that the designated beneficiary forfeited her right to said insurance upon the granting of the divorce, and that since the designated beneficiary was living at the time of decedent's death, the contingent beneficiaries may not assert any claim to the policy proceeds, and that therefore the proceeds of the policy should be paid to the estate. The defendants, Martha Gunn Morgan, Bryant Liddell Morgan and Dorcas Elizabeth Morgan, contend that Martha Gunn Morgan, as designated beneficiary of the policy is entitled to the proceeds of same.
The United States of America has answered herein in effect saying that it is merely the stakeholder herein, and requesting the protection of the Court.
The question of law presented to the Court is succinctly stated in the memorandum of the United States as follows:
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers Insurance Company v. Fields
...bar, appellant relies principally upon the recent decision of Judge Moynahan of the Eastern District of Kentucky in Morgan v. United States, 315 F.Supp. 213 (E.D.Ky.1969). In that case, the dispute concerned the proceeds of a National Service Life Insurance policy. These policies are issued......
-
United States v. Donall, 72-1313.
...See, e. g., Hoffman v. United States, 391 F.2d 195 (9th Cir. 1968); McCollum v. Sieben, 211 F.2d 708 (8th Cir. 1954); Morgan v. United States, 315 F.Supp. 213 (E.D.Ky.1969); Fitzstephens v. United States, 189 F.Supp. 919 (D.Wyo. 1960); Eldin v. United States, 157 F. Supp. 34 (S.D.Ill.1957).......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Dulek
...Fields, 451 F.2d 1292, 1295-96 (6th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 406 U.S. 919, 92 S.Ct. 1772, 32 L.Ed.2d 118 (1972); Morgan v. United States, 315 F.Supp. 213, 214-15 (E.D.Ky.1969); Fitzstephens v. United States, 189 F.Supp. 919, 921 (1960). But see O'Brien v. Elder, 250 F.2d 275, 278-80 (5th Ci......
-
Kinsolving v. McGee, 411.
...but from monies to which she had no claim but for her marriage. Bissell v. Gentry, 403 S.W.2d 15 (Ky.1966); but see Morgan v. United States, 315 F. Supp. 213 (E.D.Ky.1969). On September 5, 1972, the Shelby Circuit Court entered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff and directed the V......