Rose v. Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 April 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-1317,19-1317
• Citation: Rose v. Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 954 F.3d 1117 (8th Cir. 2020)
• Parties: Michele ROSE, also known as Michele Rose Bernstein, Plaintiff - Appellant v. MIDLAND NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant v. Estate of Joel S. Bernstein, Third Party Defendant - Appellee
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

954 F.3d 1117

Michele ROSE, also known as Michele Rose Bernstein, Plaintiff - Appellant

v.MIDLAND NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant

v.Estate of Joel S. Bernstein, Third Party Defendant - Appellee

No. 19-1317

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 11, 2019

Filed: April 2, 2020

Lawrence P. Kaplan, Kaplan Associates, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiif-Appellant.

Lee G. Kline, Lee G. Kline, LLC., Clayton, MO, for Third Party Defendant - Appellee.

Before ERICKSON, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

KOBES, Circuit Judge.

Michele Rose filed suit against her ex-husband’s estate alleging that his life insurance proceeds rightly belong to her.Because Rose had not produced a court order or a valid contract expressly designating her as the beneficiary, the district court¹ held that New Jersey Statute § 3B:3-14 revoked her beneficiary designation and granted judgment to the Estate.Rose appeals claiming that the district court erred by finding that the Interspousal Agreement could not be orally amended, making a credibility finding about an oral amendment, and determining that an oral agreement was not a contract under § 3B:3-14.We affirm.

I.

Rose married Joel S. Bernstein in 1984.During their marriage, Bernstein purchased a $130,000 life insurance policy that named Rose as the beneficiary.In August 1989, they agreed to divorce and executed an Interspousal Agreement disposing of some marital property.The agreement did not discuss the policy.It also required that any modification or waiver of any provision be "made in writing and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement."

Rose claims that after signing the Interspousal Agreement and before the divorce decree issued Bernstein orally agreed to modify the Interspousal Agreement.Specifically, Bernstein would continue paying premiums on the life insurance policy and keep her as the beneficiary.He told her that he would "tell his attorney" to make the changes, RoseDep. 19:11–12, but she never signed anything that modified the Interspousal Agreement, id.at 19:25–20:7.

A New Jersey court held a final divorce hearing and entered a Final Judgment of Divorce on June 28, 1990.The judgment incorporates the Interspousal Agreement.On the copy of the Final Judgment submitted to the district court,² there are handwritten notations stating that the Interspousal Agreement was "orally amended" and that Rose could resume the use of her former name.In a different hand, there is a notation that indicates Bernstein agreed to pay Rose $200 per week for six months longer than the Interspousal Agreement provided.The judgment also does not mention the life insurance policy.

New Jersey law states that "[e]xcept as provided by the express terms of a governing instrument, a court order, or a contract relating to the division of the marital estate made between the divorced individuals" a divorce revokes "dispositions or appointment of property made by a divorced individual to his former spouse in a governing instrument."N.J. Stat. Ann. § 3B:3-14.So unless the Interspousal Agreement or the Final Judgment expressly provides that Rose remains the beneficiary of the life insurance policy after the divorce, New Jersey law revokes the beneficiary designation to Rose.

The district court held that Rose could not prove the Interspousal Agreement was amended to address the policy and granted judgment to the Estate.Rose timely appealed.

II.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo .Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 409 F.3d 984, 990(8th Cir.2005).Summary judgment is proper when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).A material fact "affect[s] the outcome of the lawsuit."Williams v. Medalist Golf, Inc. , 910 F.3d 1041, 1045(8th Cir.2018).We draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.Id.As "a federal court sitting in diversity, we apply the substantive law of the forum state."Chew v. Am. Greetings Corp. , 754 F.3d 632, 635(8th Cir.2014).All parties agree that New Jersey law governs.

The gravamen of Rose’s appeal is that the district court incorrectly held that the Interspousal Agreement and the Final Judgment could not be orally amended.By its plain terms, the Interspousal Agreement requires any modification to be in writing and executed with the same formalities as the agreement.Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Gonnella , No. 19-2208, ––– F.3d ––––, ––––, 2020 WL 1190996, at *3(3d Cir.Mar. 12, 2020)(terms of New Jersey marital separation agreement prevented oral modification)...