Redd v. Brooke
| Decision Date | 03 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 10262,10262 |
| Citation | 604 P.2d 360,96 Nev. 9 |
| Parties | Alan E. REDD, Appellant, v. James R. BROOKE, Administrator of the Estate of Mary French Caron, aka Mary French Redd, Deceased, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Cunningham & Williams, Chartered, Reno, for appellant.
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Reno, for respondent.
Wendell E. Redd died on May 21, 1976. His ex-wife, Mary French, survived him by only a few minutes. Wendell Redd's brother, the contingent beneficiary of an insurance policy on his life, sued the administrator of Mary's estate, to recover proceeds received pursuant to the policy.
Alan Redd, the contingent beneficiary, asks this court to reverse a judgment in favor of Mary's administrator, and to instruct a judgment in his favor. Appellant Redd contends that a provision of a divorce decree terminated Mary's interest as named beneficiary, even though Wendell had taken no steps to remove her as the policy's named beneficiary. The divorce decree provided:
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the law and the facts, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
1. That plaintiff, MARY FRENCH REDD, be, and she hereby is, given and granted a final and absolute divorce from the defendant, WENDELL EDWARD REDD, upon the ground that plaintiff and defendant are incompatible; said divorce to be in full force and effect immediately, there being no provision in the laws of the State of Nevada for interlocutory divorce, or restrictions on remarriage of either party.
2. That the oral agreement settling and determining the property rights of the parties hereto is hereby confirmed, ratified and approved and made a part of this Decree of Divorce, and the parties hereto are hereby ordered and directed to comply with its terms which are as follows: . . .
That each party be awarded life insurance on his or her life.
The general rule is that the rights of the beneficiary in an ordinary life insurance policy are not affected by subsequent divorce, particularly where no attempt is made to change the beneficiary after the divorce and the insured keeps up payments on the policy. 4 Couch on Insurance 2d § 27:111 (2 ed. 1960).
It is also the rule that a wife may contract away her rights in the insurance on the husband's life when a decree of divorce is obtained. General expressions or clauses in an agreement are not to be construed as including an assignment or renunciation of expectancies. The beneficiary retains status under the policy if it does not clearly appear from the agreement that, in addition to segregation of their property, the spouses intended to deprive either spouse from the right to take under the insurance policy. 4 Couch Ins.2d § 27:114. Nevertheless, if the language in the decree of divorce in this case could be construed as a waiver or renunciation of Mary's right to take as Wendell's beneficiary, then arguably the trial court erred in confirming the payment of the proceeds of the policy to Mary's estate. See Romero v. Melendez, 83 N.M. 776, 498 P.2d 305 (1972); Thorp v. Randazzo, 41 Cal.2d 770, 264 P.2d 38 (1953).
The trial court concluded as follows:
....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vasconi v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America
...334 N.W.2d 114, 117 (1983) (noting ease with which a life insurance beneficiary designation may be changed) (citing Redd v. Brooke, 96 Nev. 9, 11, 604 P.2d 360, 361 (1980)); Williston, supra, § 916 at 479 (usual mode of changing beneficiary is written notification of insurer). Here, for exa......
-
Culbertson v. Continental Assur. Co., 17148
... ... Randazzo. The recent decision of Redd v. Brooke 13 is factually comparable to the instant one. Therein, the administrator of the estate of the husband contended that a provision in the ... ...
-
Pruitt v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
...or waiver by [the ex-wife], we decline to speculate as to what the parties may have intended.") (quoting Redd v. Brooke , 96 Nev. 9, 11, 604 P.2d 360 (1980) ). In Ramsey , the divorce decree was similarly vague, stating that the husband took certain accounts "free and clear of any interest ......
-
Fortis Benefits Ins. Co. v. Johnson
...has looked to Couch on Insurance as an authoritative treatment of issues arising under insurance contracts. See, e.g., Redd v. Brooke, 96 Nev. 9, 604 P.2d 360 (1980). The court's review of the applicable portions of the Couch treatise reveals that the intent of the insured with regard to th......