Spalding v. Williams
Decision Date | 09 April 1957 |
Citation | 275 Wis. 394,82 N.W.2d 187 |
Parties | Charles SPALDING, individually, and as adm'r of the Estate of Raymond F. Spalding, Deceased, Respondent, v. Doris WILLIAMS, a/k/a Doris L. Williams, Appellant. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Field, Rikkers & Brickhouse, John B. Brickhouse, Madison, for appellant
Rogers & Owens, Portage, for respondent.
Doris Williams and Raymond Spalding were married August 17, 1950. Doris, then a minor, brought nothing but her clothes and a few personal effects; she earned nothing during the three years of the marriage. In September 1953 the property of the parties, having a value of $950, consisted of an equity in a home, an automobile, a camera, the two life insurance policies, household items and savings, and their personal effects. The two insurance policies, acquired by Raymond before the marriage, were each in the amount of $1,000. Upon the marriage he named his wife beneficiary. On the New York Life policy Charles Spalding, Raymond's father, was contingent beneficiary. Both policies provided for double indemnity in case of accidental death and both policies reserved to the insured the right to change the beneficiary upon notification to the company in writing.
On September 25, 1953 the parties were divorced in an action commenced by Raymond. A stipulation was entered into for the division of property and incorporated into the judgment of divorce in the following language:
No specific mention of the insurance policies, or of any of the property awarded to the husband (with the exception of the reference to the homestead), was made in the stipulation. Appellant executed and delivered her quitclaim deed of the home, accepted the cash and personal items awarded to her in the judgment and made no claim to the insurance policies or any other items owned by the parties.
Raymond Spalding died on October 11, 1953 as the result of injuries received in an automobile accident the previous day. His father testified that Raymond had kept the insurance policies in a folder at his, the father's, home and on the day before the accident Raymond took them with him. They were found in the glove compartment of his car after the accident; the named beneficiary had not been changed. Releases were sent to Doris, through her attorney in the divorce action, for the release of any claims under the policies and assignment of their proceeds to Charles Spalding, but she refused to execute them. Thereafter this action was commenced.
Appellant's main contention and the basis of her appeal, both from the order and from the judgment, is that the only way in which a wife may be divested of her interest in her husband's life insurance policies is by change of beneficiary in accordance with the terms of the policies.
It has been held that under sec. 246.09, Stats. a married woman named beneficiary in the life insurance policy of her husband takes a vested interest in the policy subject to be divested only in the manner reserved in the policy. Christman v. Christman, 1916, 163 Wis. 433, 157 N.W. 1099; Hott v. Warner, 1954, 268 Wis. 264, 67 N.W.2d 370.
In the Christman case the husband owned a policy in which his wife was the named beneficiary and which provided for change of beneficiary upon written notice to the company; the parties were divorced and eight months later the husband died leaving a will in which he bequeathed the proceeds of the policy to persons other than the wife. This court held that the busband's attempt to dispose of the proceeds by will failed because 'he was limited to the terms of such reservation in making an effectual disposition' thereof. [163 Wis. 433, 157 N.W. 1100.]
In Hott v. Warner, supra [268 Wis. 264, 67 N.W.2d 371], when the parties were divorced a stipulation for the division of property recited that the wife would make no claim 'in connection with any and all other property that he may own.' The court stated, 268 Wis. at page 266, 67 N.W.2d at page 371:
'He had no interest whatever in her property in the policy. Accordingly her stipulation cannot be said to affect any property which 'he may own."
Here, the property stipulation incorporated in the judgment of divorce provided that 'As a full, final and complete settlement of property between the parties,' Doris was awarded specified personal effects and $625, and Raymond was awarded 'all the rest of the property.' It must be presumed that the property with which the judgment dealt was all such property as is subject to the court's authority under sec. 247.26, Stats.:
'* * * the court may finally divide and distribute the estate, both real and personal, of the husband and so much of the estate of the wife as shall have been derived from the husband, between the parties and divest and transfer the title of any thereof accordingly * * *.'
It is obvious that 'so much of the estate of the wife as shall have been derived from the husband' includes the wife's interest...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pitts v. Ashcraft
...of Hollaway v. Selvidge, 219 Kan. 345, 548 P.2d 835 (1978); O'Brien v. Elder, 250 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1959); and Spalding v. Williams, 275 Wis. 394, 82 N.W.2d 187 (1957). We have examined each of these authorities and find they are distinguishable or are not controlling. In each instance eit......
-
Prince v. Bryant
...sec. 465-467 (1967). A life insurance policy is property which is within the jurisdiction of the family court. Spalding v. Williams, 275 Wis. 394, 398, 399, 82 N.W.2d 187 (1957). The temporary order here, which refers generally to the property of the parties, included the life insurance pol......
-
Hancock v. Kentucky Cent. Life Ins. Co.
...policy proceeds, equity demands that Sandra not receive the proceeds. Hancock relies on the Wisconsin case of Spalding v. Williams (1957), 275 Wis. 394, 82 N.W.2d 187 to support his argument. However, Spalding was overruled by the case of Bersch v. VanKleeck (1983), 112 Wis.2d 594, 334 N.W.......
-
Wilharms v. Wilharms, 77-267
...As a beneficiary of her husband's life insurance policy, Barbara Wilharms had a property interest in the policy. Spalding v. Williams, 275 Wis. 394, 399, 82 N.W.2d 187 (1957); Prince v. Bryant, 87 Wis.2d at 672, 275 N.W.2d 676. The change of beneficiary designation disposed of his wife's in......