Washington v. Hicks, 81-2367

• Decision Date: 03 September 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-2367,81-2367
• Citation: 109 Wis.2d 10,325 N.W.2d 68
• Parties: Sam Ella WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Martha HICKS, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff-Respondent, Aetna Life & Casualty Company, a foreign corporation, Defendant, Mae Washington, Personal Representative of the Estate of LeRoy Washington, Deceased, Third Party Defendant.
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Page 68

325 N.W.2d 68

109 Wis.2d 10

Sam Ella WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Martha HICKS, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff-Respondent Aetna Life & Casualty Company, a foreign corporation, Defendant Mae Washington, Personal Representative of the Estate of LeRoy Washington, Deceased, Third Party Defendant.

No. 81-2367.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Submitted on Briefs Aug. 2, 1982.

Opinion Released Sept. 3, 1982.

Opinion Filed Sept. 3, 1982.

Wilson, Broadnax & Owens by John R. Broadnax, Milwaukee, for plaintiff-appellant.

Schnellbaecher and Van Wagenen by Gerritt J. Van Wagenen, Milwaukee, for defendant and third party plaintiff-respondent, Martha Hicks.

Before DECKER, C. J., MOSER, P. J., and WEDEMEYER, J.

WEDEMEYER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding Sam Ella Washington (Washington) $10,800, plus accrued interest, and awarding Martha Hicks (Hicks) $26,200, plus accrued interest, from proceeds of a group life insurance policy insuring the life of LeRoy Washington (LeRoy). We affirm.

Washington and LeRoy were married on August 27, 1938. They were divorced on June 22, 1961. The divorce judgment required LeRoy to keep his life insurance in effect and to maintain Washington as the beneficiary of the policy. At the time of the divorce, the only life insurance policy LeRoy carried was a group life insurance policy provided by his employer, Allis-Chalmers. The death benefit at the time of the divorce was $5,400.

On January 2, 1977, LeRoy changed the beneficiary on this group life policy to Hicks, contrary to the divorce judgment. LeRoy died from a fall at work on October 24, 1980. At the time of LeRoy's death, the death benefit of the group life policy was $18,500. A double indemnity clause in the group life contract increased the benefit to $37,000. Washington appeals the trial court's conclusion that she was entitled only to the value of the group life benefit ($5,400) plus an equal amount from the double indemnity clause.

Washington argues four issues: (1) whether res judicata barred the trial court from dividing the proceeds from the group life contract; (2) whether the increased value of the group life contract was distributed to Washington under the provisions of the divorce decree; (3) whether equity bars Hicks from receiving any share of the life insurance proceeds; and (4) whether Hicks failed to prove the existence of another life insurance contract.

Washington's first argument is not relevant to a logical disposition of this case. By union contract with Allis-Chalmers, the value of the group life contract was increased subsequent to the divorce judgment. The divorce judgment by its terms did not anticipate or provide for an increase in insurance benefits, and therefore, no rights to the enhanced value accrued to Washington.

Washington's second argument attacks the trial court's reliance on Bloomer v. Bloomer, 84 Wis.2d 124, 267 N.W.2d 235 (1978). Bloomer held that contributions to a pension fund made after a divorce would not be assets of the marital estate. Id. at 127-28 n.1, 267 N.W.2d at 237 n.1. The trial court found in the present case that the subsequent contributions to the group life policy would, as in Bloomer, not be assets of the marital estate....