Parrish v. Kaska, 4577.

• Decision Date: 08 May 1953
• Docket Number: No. 4577.,4577.
• Citation: 204 F.2d 451
• Parties: PARRISH et al. v. KASKA et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

204 F.2d 451 (1953)

PARRISH et al. v. KASKA et al.

No. 4577.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

May 8, 1953.

E. P. Ledbetter, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellants.

Wm. Walter Hentz, Jr., Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellee Beulah Marie Kaska.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.

PHILLIPS, Chief Judge.

Aubrey Coutant, now deceased, and Beulah Marie Kaska were married on June 6, 1931. The Illinois Bankers Life Assurance Company issued an insurance policy in the amount of $2,500 on the life of Coutant, naming Kaska as the beneficiary of that policy. Thereafter, the policy was reinsured by the plaintiff in this action, the Central Standard Life Insurance Company.¹

Coutant and his wife, Kaska, entered into a property settlement agreement in Monterey County, California. The provisions thereof here material read:

"4. Second party Kaska hereby sells, assigns, transfers and sets over unto first party Coutant as and for his sole and separate property all her right, title, interest and estate of, in and to those certain policies of insurance on the life of the first party with the Illinois Bankers\' Assurance Co., * * * with the right of the first party to change the beneficiary therein, * * *.

* * * * * * "7. Each of the parties hereto hereby releases and discharges the other party hereto from any and all claims for support, maintenance, alimony pendente lite, costs, attorney\'s fees, and all other claims of every kind and nature, * * * and each of the parties hereto agrees to accept the property herein agreed to be accepted by them under the terms of this agreement in full satisfaction and discharge of any and all claims of every kind and nature which either of them has, or may at any time hereafter have, against the other, * * *."

Shortly after the separation agreement was executed, Coutant instituted an action for divorce against Kaska, in Monterey County, California. On December 14, 1945, an interlocutory decree was entered, granting a divorce to Coutant and appproving the agreement. A final decree was entered on February 25, 1947.

Coutant died on May 18, 1947, without having changed Kaska as the beneficiary of the policy. After his death Coutant's heirs filed a claim with the Insurance Company for the proceeds of the policy. When the Insurance Company located Kaska, who then lived in Oklahoma, it brought this interpleader action under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1335, deposited the proceeds of the policy with the trial court, and asked that the proceeds be given to the party or parties the court determined to be entitled thereto. The court awarded the proceeds of the policy to Kaska.

The heirs of Coutant contend that the property settlement effected a complete and immediate settlement between the parties as to all their property rights, duties, and obligations, including the transfer of all rights which Kaska might have had in and to the policy and including her expectancy, and that by reason of the property settlement she is not now entitled to the proceeds of the policy. The trial court found, however, that the interest of Kaska in the policy was an expectancy created by the terms of the policy itself and was not a property right arising out of the marriage; that there was no immediate change of beneficiary effected by the property settlement agreement, but that Coutant was merely given the right to change the beneficiary of the policy free from all claims of Kaska arising out of their marriage, and that she...