Vaughan v. Vaughan, 98-04521.
| Decision Date | 01 October 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-04521.,98-04521. |
| Citation | 741 So.2d 1221 |
| Parties | Valerie VAUGHAN, Appellant, v. Marcia O'Dell VAUGHAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Johnson S. Savary, Sarasota, for Appellant.
Susan J. Silverman, Sarasota, for Appellee.
Valerie Vaughan ("daughter") appeals the final order on summary judgment in which the trial court determined that her mother, Marcia ODell Vaughan ("former wife"), was entitled to the proceeds of an insurance policy issued upon the life of Valerie's late father, attorney Byron Vaughan. Additionally, the trial court concluded that the former wife was entitled to the contents of Mr. Vaughan's Individual Retirement Account ("IRA"). We hold that the court erred in granting the former wife's motion for summary judgment and denying the daughter's motion concerning the disposition of the IRA. Accordingly, we reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.
Mr. Vaughan and the former wife filed for divorce. While the divorce was pending, Mr. Vaughan established the "Byron Vaughan Living Trust" on June 29, 1994. That trust was designated as the primary beneficiary of a $250,000.00 life insurance policy, the only asset in the trust.
One day prior to the entry of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, a marital settlement agreement was executed. The agreement, dated December 14, 1994, provided that Mr. Vaughan was to pay permanent periodic alimony secured by a $250,000.00 life insurance policy. The agreement specified that the former wife was to be named as primary beneficiary of the life insurance policy; however, the designation was never changed on the existing life insurance policy, nor did Mr. Vaughan secure another life insurance policy with the trust as primary beneficiary.
Additionally, Mr. Vaughan owned an IRA with a value of $62,808.10. The former wife was the designated primary beneficiary of the IRA, and the daughter was the designated secondary beneficiary. In order to equalize the value of the retirement benefit, the marital settlement agreement required Mr. Vaughan to transfer $22,036.98 of the value of the IRA to the former wife. In January 1995, the funds were transferred in accordance with a qualified domestic relations order (the "QDRO"). The IRA beneficiary designation was not changed after execution of the settlement agreement or after the QDRO payment was made.
Mr. Vaughan died on August 27, 1997. The proceeds of the insurance policy were paid to the trustee for the benefit of the trust and the contents of Mr. Vaughan's IRA account were transferred to the former wife. Thereafter, the daughter filed a complaint which sought declaratory relief to determine the manner in which the proceeds of the insurance policy should be distributed and requested that the court award the proceeds of the IRA to her. The former wife filed a counterclaim contending that she was entitled to the entire proceeds of the insurance policy and to the IRA funds free of any claims of the daughter. The daughter and the former wife both filed competing motions for summary judgment. After a hearing, the court entered an order denying the daughter's motion and granting the former wife's motion.
Summary judgment is proper only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crawford v. Barker
...of an ERISA plan). 4. In Luszcz, 787 So.2d at 248, the Second District receded from its previous decision in Vaughan v. Vaughan, 741 So.2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), in which it had distinguished and declined to apply Cooper II on two bases: (1) the insurance policy in Cooper was a term......
-
Luszcz v. Lavoie
...of proceeds upon notice to the insurer." Id. at 79 n. 1. The personal representative urges this court to follow Vaughan v. Vaughan, 741 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). In Vaughan, the parties' marital settlement agreement required the husband to transfer part of the value of his IRA to the w......
-
Smith v. Smith
...have to the disputed funds. In this connection, the trial court said that: The case law which controls this issue is Vaughan v. Vaughan, 741 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Although there is no Fifth Circuit [sic] opinion in this matter, this court is persuaded by the reasoning in In Cooper ......
-
Ross v. Ross
...as marital assets, because a term policy has no value until the contingency of the death of the insured occurs. See Vaughan v. Vaughan, 741 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), receded from on other grounds, Luszcz v. Lavoie, 787 So.2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (noting that a term policy with no cas......
-
The top five things practitioners need to know about IRAs now: a discussion of state law, case law, and other considerations.
...(8) FLA. STAT. [section]744.307(2). (9) Cooper v. Muccitelli, 682 So. 2d 77, 79 (Fla. 1996). (10) See also Vaughan v. Vaughan, 741 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1999); In re Estate of Dellinger, 760 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2000); Luszcz v. Lavoie, 787 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2001). (1......
-
When good IRAs go bad: common pre- and post- mortem IRA problems with uncommonly bad results.
...A-5 and 1.401(a)(9)-5, A-7. (9) Regs. [subsection] 1.401(a)(9)-4 A-5 and 1.401(a)(9)-5. A-7. (10) See also Vaughan v. Vaughan, 741 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1999); In re Estate of Dellinger, 760 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2000); Luszcz v. Lavoie, 787 So.2d 245 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. (11) FLA. SW......