Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum v. Heitzman

• Decision Date: 08 June 1909
• Parties: SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE ROYAL ARCANUM v. HEITZMAN et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

120 S.W. 628

140 Mo. App. 105

SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE ROYAL ARCANUM v. HEITZMAN et al.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 8, 1909.

1. STATUTES (§ 263) — RETROACTIVE OPERATION.

Statutes will not be held to affect transactions which antedate them unless the intention of the Legislature that they should have a retroactive effect is clear, especially where the opposite construction would render a statute unconstitutional.

2. INSURANCE (§ 783) — MUTUAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES — CERTIFICATES — NATURE OF MEMBER'S INTEREST.

The right of a member in a mutual benefit society to the sum agreed to be paid at his death upon his certificate is simply the right to appoint a beneficiary, and a beneficiary so appointed acquires merely an expectancy which may be divested by the member changing the beneficiary, and hence independently of Rev. St. 1899, § 1417 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1116), declaring that no contract between a member of such a society and his beneficiary that the beneficiary shall pay the member's assessments and dues shall give the beneficiary a vested right in the benefit certificate or deprive the member of the right to change the beneficiary, a member who had made his wife his sole beneficiary in pursuance of an alleged agreement with her that she should pay his dues and assessments and care for him, and that he should not change the beneficiary, could subsequently make his daughter a beneficiary of part of the certificate.

3. INSURANCE (§ 783) — MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE — LIEN ON CERTIFICATE FOR ASSESSMENTS PAID.

Under the statute, the wife could have no lien on the proceeds of the certificate for reimbursement for money paid by her for assessments, dues, and in caring for her husband pursuant to the agreement prohibited by the statute.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Moses N. Sale, Judge.

Interpleader by the Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum against Effie Heitzman and another. From the judgment, the mentioned defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Bass & Brock, for appellant. J. C. Shaner and F. H. Bacon, for respondent.

GOODE, J.

Plaintiff is a fraternal association incorporated under the laws of Massachusetts, and authorized to do business in this state. On January 10, 1895, Joseph Heitzman applied for and received a certificate of membership in plaintiff company, binding him to comply with all the laws, rules, and regulations of the order, and binding plaintiff, if he did, to pay his children, Bessie, Katy, and Susie, the sum of $3,000 at his death. In 1896 Heitzman surrendered said benefit certificate and obtained a new one payable to the same beneficiaries. On July 20, 1901, he surrendered the second benefit certificate for a new one, payable one-third to his wife Effie and two-thirds to Susie Heitzman. Plaintiff alleges the said surrender of the certificates and issuance of others in their places was according to the by-laws of the order. On November 9, 1905, Joseph Heitzman died, and plaintiff then became liable to pay $3,000 to his legal beneficiaries. After his death Effie Heitzman demanded the entire amount of the benefit certificate, to wit, $3,000, asserting that, in order to comply with the formalities required for a change of beneficiaries, the insured fraudulently had obtained possession of the certificate issued in her favor July 20, 1901, and that Susie Heitzman demanded of plaintiff $2,000, which she asserted was payable to her under the terms of the certificate last issued. These facts were set up in a petition in the nature of a bill of interpleader filed by plaintiff, the amount of the certificate was paid into court, and plaintiff prayed defendants be enjoined from bringing action against it on the certificate, and be required to interplead for the money among themselves. Pursuant to a stipulation entered into by the parties, the court discharged plaintiff, ordered the defendants to interplead for the fund, and to bring their certificates into court to be held by the clerk until final disposition of the case. Appellant Effie Heitzman filed her interplea, in which she alleged most of the facts stated, supra, regarding transactions between Joseph Heitzman and the company until the date of the certificate issued July 20, 1901, alleged the certificate issued to Heitzman in 1896, wherein his three children were beneficiaries, was surrendered by him to the company and a new one taken out payable to her (appellant), pursuant to an agreement between her and him entered into in July, 1901; that she should pay plaintiff all dues and assessments to fall due, and Heitzman should cause a new benefit certificate to be issued by the company in which she (appellant) should be the beneficiary to the amount of $3,000; that it was agreed by the insured and herself the former should not thereafter change the beneficiary so that any other person would become interested in the proceeds of the certificate, so long as she should continue to pay the dues and assessments and take care of said Joseph Heitzman in his last days. Pursuant to said arrangement between her and Joseph Heitzman, the latter caused the certificate issued July 20, 1901, to be issued in said Effie's favor for the full amount of $3,000, and afterwards she paid all dues and assessments accruing on said certificate and took care of said Heitzman in fulfillment of her agreement. On or about March 11, 1905, said Joseph Heitzman, during her absence from their home, secretly took said benefit certificate from her custody without her knowledge or consent, it having been delivered to her under the contract between the two. Said Joseph surrendered the same and caused a new certificate to be issued by the company, whereby he attempted to divest said Effie of her vested interest in the $3,000 and to make $2,000 of the benefit payable to Susie, his daughter, and only $1,000 payable to her, said Effie. She paid to the order a large sum of money, the exact amount she could not state, to keep up the dues and assessments on the certificate, and paid out also a large sum for the support, maintenance, and medical treatment of her husband. On those facts and others corresponding to what we have recited from plaintiff's petition appellant prayed the court to decree the whole $3,000 be paid over to her, and for further proper relief. Susie Heitzman moved the court to enter judgment in her favor on the interplea filed by Effie Heitzman on the ground the facts stated in said interplea gave said Effie no right to more than $1,000 of the proceeds of the certificate. This motion was sustained, the court entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of Susie for $2,000 of the fund and in favor of Effie Heitzman for $1,000. Said Effie (appellant) moved the court to arrest the judgment for various reasons, the sum of which is she was entitled to the entire fund on the facts stated in her interplea. This motion was overruled, and she appealed.

A statute of this state was enacted in 1897 (Laws 1897, p. 132) which concerns the matter in hand. Said act declared no contract between a member of a fraternal society and his beneficiary that the latter, or any one for him, should pay such member's assessments and dues, should give the beneficiary a vested right in the benefit certificate, or in the benefit, or deprive the member of the right to change the name of the beneficiary and revoke the certificate; further, that the money or other benefit, charity, relief, or aid already paid or to be paid, provided, or rendered by any fraternal association should not be liable to attachment or execution by trustee, garnishee, or other process, and should not be seized, taken, or applied by any legal or equitable process or by...