PIPE FITTERS'LOCAL NO. 392 PENSION PLAN v. Huddle

• Decision Date: 18 October 1982
• Docket Number: No. C-1-81-363.,C-1-81-363.
• Parties: PIPE FITTERS' LOCAL NO. 392 PENSION PLAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Nancy V. HUDDLE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

549 F. Supp. 359

PIPE FITTERS' LOCAL NO. 392 PENSION PLAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Nancy V. HUDDLE, et al., Defendants.

No. C-1-81-363.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, W.D.

October 18, 1982.

Harold G. Korbee, Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiffs.

James C. Curry and Samuel H. Furer, Marc D. Mezibov, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO NANCY V. HUDDLE

SPIEGEL, District Judge:

This matter came on for consideration of cross-motions for summary judgment filed by defendant Nancy V. Huddle (doc. 13), Frank Elmer Huddle, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Hugh Huddle, deceased, and Marie Elizabeth Huddle (doc. 14), the reply memorandum of defendants Frank Elmer Huddle, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Hugh Huddle, and Marie Elizabeth Huddle (doc. 16), the memorandum of the Pipe Fitters' Local No. 392, et al. (doc. 17), and the reply memorandum of Nancy V. Huddle (doc. 18). The parties also presented a stipulation of facts and exhibits (doc. 11), which included all exhibits attached to the complaint and depositions that have been filed, including those of defendants Marie Elizabeth Huddle and Frank Elmer Huddle, and Rosalie Jackson, an employee of the plaintiff.

This action, an interpleader entitled "complaint for interpleader and declaratory relief on conflicting claims to employee death benefits" (doc. 1), was filed by the Pipe Fitters' Union Local 392 Pension Plan and Pipe Fitters' Union Local 392 Health and Welfare Plan. The defendants include Frank Elmer Huddle, as Executor of the Estate of Hugh Huddle, deceased, and individually, and Marie Elizabeth Huddle, Nancy V. Huddle, and Marie Ann Huddle. Frank Elmer Huddle and Marie Elizabeth Huddle are children of Hugh Huddle, deceased, and Nancy V. Huddle is the widow of the deceased. Marie Ann Huddle, a former wife of the deceased, is herself deceased and no one claims through her.

Jurisdiction of the subject matter of this litigation and the parties is based upon the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., 29 U.S.C. 1132(d)(1) and (2), (e)(1) and (2), and (g). Plaintiffs brought this action to determine who is entitled to the pension and health and welfare benefits which decedent had with the Pipe Fitters' Union Local No. 392 Pension Plan and Pipe Fitters' Union Local No. 392 Health and Welfare Plan, as conflicting claims to the benefits have been made by the defendants.

The narrow question which we must decide is whether there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and whether either of the moving parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. The Court cannot try issues of face on a Rule 56 motion, but is empowered to determine only whether there are issues to be tried. In re Atlas Concrete Pipe, Inc., 668 F.2d 905, 908 (6th Cir. 1982). The moving party "has the burden of showing conclusively that there exists no genuine issue as to a material fact and the evidence together with all inferences to be drawn therefrom must be read in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Smith v. Hudson, 600 F.2d 60, 63 (6th Cir. 1979) (emphasis original). And, "while the movant's papers are to be closely scrutinized, those of the opponent are to be viewed indulgently." Id. at 63. "The District Court is obligated to consider not only the materials specifically offered in support of the motion, but also all `pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions' properly on file and thus properly before the court." Id., quoting Rule 56(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. Summary judgment "must be used only with extreme caution for it operates to deny a litigant his day in court." Id.

According to the stipulation of facts, at the time of his death on April 15, 1980, decedent, Hugh Huddle, had acquired entitlements in the Pipe Fitters' Union Local No. 392 Pension Plan of $16,297.17, and benefits in the Pipe Fitters' Union Local No. 392 Health and Welfare Plan of $3,000. Each of these plans permitted him to designate in writing a beneficiary to receive the available death benefits. At the time of his death, appropriate beneficiary designation cards dated April 23, 1979 and listing defendant Nancy V. Huddle, his surviving spouse, as beneficiary of the available proceeds of both plans were on file at the plaintiffs' offices (Exhibits G, I — doc. 1). At some time subsequent to June 20, 1980, plaintiffs received an unmarked envelope postmarked June 20, 1980, which contained designation of beneficiary cards purporting to effect on September 20, 1979 a change of beneficiary from defendant Nancy V. Huddle to the defendants Frank Elmer Huddle and Marie Elizabeth Huddle, children of the deceased (Exhibits D, E, F, J — doc. 1).

Frank Huddle testified that he watched his father sign the change of beneficiary cards, and that his father stated that his marriage with Nancy was over and he wanted to change the beneficiary. The son also testified that his father did not ask him to mail the cards in and that he did not see the cards again until after his father's death (deposition of Frank Huddle, 9-13). The daughter Marie Huddle testified that she was not present when her father signed the change of beneficiary cards but that he told her he was going to change the beneficiaries (deposition of Marie Huddle 7-8).

In an affidavit attached to her motion for summary judgment, the widow Nancy Huddle testified that when she visited her husband at home shortly before his death, he stated "to the best of my recollection, `Little lady, you're lucky because I was going to change beneficiaries, but I didn't, and I'm not going to'" (doc. 13).

The manner in which designation and changes of beneficiaries...