Riser v. Riser, 1087--I
| Decision Date | 16 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 1087--I,1087--I |
| Citation | 7 Wn.App. 647,501 P.2d 1069 |
| Parties | Margaret RISER, as Guardian ad Litem of Coralynn Jan Riser, a minor, Appellant, v. Eleanor Weitzel RISER, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Carney, Stevenson, Siqueland, Badley & Smith, Basil L. Badley, Seattle, for appellant.
Guttormsen, Scholfield & Stafford, Shannon Stafford, John Cooper (argued), Seattle, for respondent.
This appeal involves the interpretation of a divorce decree provision requiring the divorced husband to maintain two life insurance policies with his two minor children as irrevocable beneficiaries during their minority or until their earlier emancipation. The trial court, after construing the decree, awarded plaintiff judgment for one-half of the insurance policy proceeds, namely, $4,000. Plaintiff appeals claiming to be entitled to judgment for the remaining half as well.
Howard, Jr. and Coralynn Jan are the children of Margaret and their late father, Howard Riser, Sr. When the parents were divorced, Howard, Jr. was 14 and Coralynn Jan was 9 years of age. A property settlement agreement entered into by the parents in connection with the divorce suit was incorporated in the divorce decree. The agreement and decree first required the father to make monthly support and maintenance payments of $100 for the benefit of Coralynn Jan 'until said child shall attain the age of majority, become married or otherwise emancipated . . .' The agreement then provided:
The husband shall be awarded those policies presently insuring his life and agrees to maintain the same in full force and effect with the minor children of the parties irrevocable beneficiaries thereon until such time as said children shall have attained the age of majority or become otherwise emancipated from the custody of the parties hereto. Said life insurance policies are more specifically described as follows: Prudential Insurance Company, endowment at age 65, face $2,000.00; Government Employees Group Life (term) face $6,000.00.
After his divorce, Howard Riser married defendant Eleanor Weitzel Riser. Later he changed the beneficiaries in each insurance policy from his son and daughter, share and share alike, to the defendant, if living, with his children as contingent beneficiaries. Subsequently Howard Riser died. At the time of his death Howard, Jr. had reached his majority, but Coralynn Jan was 16 and not emancipated. The insurance companies paid the $8,000 of insurance proceeds to defendant in conformity with the changed beneficiary designations.
Plaintiff claims defendant must account to Coralynn Jan for the total insurance proceeds. She argues the insurance maintenance obligation required the full $8,000 to be carried until both children had reached their majorities or had become otherwise emancipated. Accordingly, she contends that Howard, Jr., on attaining his majority, lost the right to benefit further from the insurance carried and that the daughter then became entitled to the full $8,000. Defendant disagrees.
The question presented is the meaning to be attributed to the above-quoted provision in the absence of extrinsic evidence Wood v. Wood, 7 Wash.App. 252, 498 P.2d 913 (1972); Callan v. Callan, 2 Wash.App. 446, 468 P.2d 456 (1970).
Each party agrees that the father's insurance maintenance obligation as to the son automatically terminated when the latter reached his majority. See Sutherland v. Sutherland, 77 Wash.2d 6, 459 P.2d 397 (1969); Herzog v. Herzog, 23 Wash.2d 382, 161 P.2d 142 (1945); Smith v. Smith, 4 Wash.App. 608, 484 P.2d 409 (1971). The parties differ as to the legal effect to be attributed to the termination as it affects the resulting rights of the daughter and stepmother. The insurance provision is capable of more than one meaning. Thus, the provision may mean (1) that should the father die during the obligation period, each of his children would be entitled to receive $4,000 of insurance proceeds whether or not the son at the time of the father's death had attained his majority or had been earlier emancipated; or (2) the son by attaining his majority or earlier emancipation loses his right to further insurance protection and the beneficiary daughter then becomes entitled to receive the full $8,000 of insurance proceeds; or (3) the son's otherwise existing share of the insurance proceeds reverts to the father as owner of the insurance policies now freed of any further obligation to the son. Neither party urges position (1); plaintiff argues for position (2), and defendant argues for position (3).
In seeking to ascertain the court's intention when it incorporated the property settlement agreement in the decree, it is not unreasonable to consider the relevant background rules of law concerning the father's duty to provide for his children.
A father, while alive and able so to do, must support and maintain his minor children during their respective minorities or until their earlier emancipation. The duty so to do automatically terminates upon the father's death or upon the attainment of majority or earlier emancipation by the child involved, whichever event first occurs. Sutherland v. Sutherland, Supra; Dawson v. Dawson, 71 Wash.2d 66, 426 P.2d 614 (1967); Ditmar v. Ditmar, 48 Wash.2d 373, 293 P.2d 759 (1956); Herzog v. Herzog, Supra.
A father's duty of support and maintenance does not require the father to make a property provision for his minor child in addition to support and maintenance. Bauer v. Bauer, 5 Wash.App. 781, 490 P.2d 1350 (1971). See Sutliff v. Harstad, 5 Wash.App. 539, 488...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Olsen, Matter of
... ... Kinne v. Kinne, 82 Wash.2d 360, 363, 510 P.2d 814 ... (1973); Riser v. Riser, 7 Wash.App. 647, 501 P.2d 1069 (1972); Bauer v. Bauer, 5 Wash.App. 781, 788, 490 P.2d ... ...
-
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Bunt
...separation actions in which children are involved. See Sutherland v. Sutherland, 77 Wash.2d 6, 459 P.2d 397 (1969); Riser v. Riser, 7 Wash.App. 647, 501 P.2d 1069 (1972). Such provisions serve a useful purpose and satisfy a legitimate need in modern society since insurance is a relatively p......
-
Marriage of Sager, In re, 14293-7-II
...77 Wash.2d 6, 10, 459 P.2d 397 (1969); In re Marriage of Donovan, 25 Wash.App. 691, 699, 612 P.2d 387 (1980); see Riser v. Riser, 7 Wash.App. 647, 650, 501 P.2d 1069 (1972) (parent not required to maintain life insurance in excess of that needed as security for This conclusion disposes of J......
-
Standard Ins. Co. v. Schwalbe
...spouse die before the children are emancipated. Sutherland v. Sutherland, 77 Wash.2d 6, 10-11, 459 P.2d 397 (1969); Riser v. Riser, 7 Wash.App. 647, 650, 501 P.2d 1069 (1972); see generally Annot., Divorce: Provision in Decree That One Party Obtain or Maintain Life Insurance for Benefit of ......
-
Post-majority Child Support in Washington
...from the only manifestations of such intent available: the language of the statutes considered. 14. Riser v. Riser, 7 Wash. App. 647, 501 P.2d 1069 (1972); Evans v. Evans, 116 Wash. 460, 199 P. 764 (1921). 15. Van Tinker v. Van Tinker, 38 Wash. 2d 390, 229 P.2d 333 (1951); Schultz v. Wester......
-
Table of Cases
...3.3(5)(a), 13.3(2)(b), 13.10(3)(a) Riley's Estate, In re, 163 Wash. 119, 300 P. 159 (1931): 13.3(2)(a), 13.3(2)(b) Riser v. Riser, 7 Wn.App. 647, 501 P.2d 1069 (1972): 4.5(4)(b) Rolph v. McGowan, 20 Wn.App. 251, 579 P.2d 1011 (1978): 12.2(5)(c) Romano, In re Estate of, 40 Wn.2d 796, 246 P.2......
-
Table of Cases
...77.04[1] Rink, In re Marriage of, 18 Wn. App. 549, 571 P.2d 210 (1977). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27.02; 32.02[1] Riser v. Riser, 7 Wn. App. 647, 501 P.2d 1069 (1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40.04[1], [2][c] Rivard v. Rivard, 75 Wn.2d 415, 451 P.2d 677 (1969) . . . 28.07; 4......
-
§40.04 Life Insurance
...life insurance policy. In re Marriage of Coyle, 61 Wn. App. 653, 662, 811 P.2d 244, review denied, 117 Wn.2d 1017 (1991); Riser v. Riser, 7 Wn. App. 647, 501 P.2d 1069 (1972). However, the court's authority to require a life insurance policy as security for obligations is not unlimited. Spe......