Succession of Butler

• Decision Date: 03 December 1962
• Docket Number: 859,Nos. 858,s. 858
• Citation: 147 So.2d 684
• Parties: Succession of Joseph BUTLER, Jr. Regina Nettie BUTLER et al. v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF GEORGIA.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 684

147 So.2d 684

Succession of Joseph BUTLER, Jr Regina Nettie BUTLER et al. v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF GEORGIA.

Nos. 858, 859.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Dec. 3, 1962.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1963.

Adelaide Baudier, New Orleans, for appellees.

Normann & Normann, Marvin Grodsky, New Orleans, for Life Ins. Co. of Georgia, appellee.

William J. Wegmann and Oliver P. Carriere, Jr. (of Racivitch, Johnson, Wegmann & Mouledoux), New Orleans, for Gertrude Geddes Willis Funeral Home, Inc., appellant.

Before YARRUT, SAMUEL and JOHNSON, JJ.

YARRUT, Judge.

These two cases were consolidated for trial and judgment in the District Court on a stipulation of fact. The controlling issue is who is entitled to the proceeds and avails of three insurance policies on the life of Joseph Butler, Jr., in which his wife and widow is the named beneficiary. The conclusion depends upon whether or not the wife, now widow, lost her beneficiary rights when, charged with the murder of her husband, she plead guilty to manslaughter in the Criminal Court, and was sentenced to six years in the penitentiary. This fact is admitted. Further, there is no issue of fact, only the legal conclusions to be drawn therefrom.

In the Succession, Case No. 858, the divorced first wife and mother of the decedent's only children was confirmed as Administratrix and Natural Tutrix of the children. An inventory on file lists the proceeds of the insurance policies as the sole Succession asset.

In Case No. 859, as Administratrix and Natural Tutrix, she sued the Insurance Company on behalf of the Succession and the children, claiming the insurance proceeds of $2,210.00. The Insurance Company, admitting liability under the policies, converted the suit into a concursus proceeding, and deposited the proceeds in the registry of the Court. All claimants to the fund, viz., the Funeral Home, the beneficiary-widow, and the father of deceased, were made parties under LSA-R.S. 13:4811. The Funeral Home made claim in both proceedings for the payment of their funeral bill (amount $1,824.60), as a creditor of the Succession and as assignee of the beneficiary-widow of the insurance proceeds or, alternatively, for her one-half, contending she had a community interest therein, if none as beneficiary.

The principal issues are whether or not the second wife, as beneficiary of the insurance proceeds, forfeited her right thereto when she plead guilty to manslaughter in shooting her husband, for which she was sentenced to six years in the penitentiary. If so, then the assignment by her to the Funeral Home would be ineffective, unless she had a half community interest in the proceeds.

Contracts of life insurance are governed by their terms. The interest of the wife, as beneficiary, has long been recognized as belonging to her separate estate, not subject to be interfered with in any manner by the assured or the insurer. Lambert v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 50 La.Ann. 1027, 24 So. 16; Putnam v. New York Life Ins. Co., 42 La.Ann. 739, 7 So. 602; Pilcher v. New York Life Ins. Co., 33 La.Ann. 322.

However, by the inclusion in the contract of a provision giving to the insured the right to change the beneficiary, such change, if made, nullifies the wife's right as beneficiary. Pollock v. Pollock, 164 La. 1077, 115 So. 275; Douglass v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 150 La. 519, 90 So. 834; Toussant v. National Life & Accident Ins. Co. of Nashville, Tenn., 147 La. 977, 86 So. 415; Alba v. Provident Savings Life Assur. Society, 118 La. 1021, 43 So. 663.

A fortiori, the same result should follow where the policy provides for the change of beneficiary by her felonious killing of her husband. In such event, the wife, having forfeited her right, the husband's separate estate becomes the beneficiary, because his death dissolved the community. Any property acquired by his estate after death belongs to his separate estate, not the community.

Furthermore, it would be illogical and against public policy to hold that the wife, denied recovery of the whole for feloniously killing her husband, yet could recover half as her community interest. American Nat. Life...