Wear v. Mizell
Decision Date | 31 October 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 77443,77443 |
Citation | 946 P.2d 1363,263 Kan. 175 |
Parties | William B. WEAR, Appellant, v. James C. MIZELL and Arilla A. Mizell, Appellees. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where a right to change the beneficiary is reserved in a life insurance policy, the beneficiary has no vested or indefeasible interest during the lifetime of the insured, but only a revocable expectancy contingent upon being the beneficiary at the time of the insured's death. A beneficiary has only an inchoate right to the proceeds of a policy, subject to being divested any time during the lifetime of the insured by transfer, assignment, or change of beneficiary.
2. A divorce action is purely personal and ends on the death of either spouse.
3. The marital property ownership interest created under K.S.A. 23-201(b) is for a property division under K.S.A. 60-1610. If there is no divorce because of the death of a spouse, there is no division of marital property. Absent entry of a K.S.A. 60-1607 order restraining the parties from changing beneficiaries on life insurance policies, K.S.A. 23-201(b) imposes no restrictions on either party from making such changes during a pending divorce.
John T. Bird, of Glassman, Bird & Braun, L.L.P., Hays, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Thomas C. Boone, of Law Office of Thomas C. Boone, argued the cause, and Joseph W. Jeter, of Jeter Law Firm, Hays, was with him on the brief for appellees.
The proceeds of two life insurance policies are at issue here. A wife changed the beneficiary from her husband to her parents after filing for divorce. The wife died of injuries received in a vehicle accident while the divorce action was pending. No restraining order had been filed in the divorce action. After a bench trial on the validity of the beneficiary change, the district court ruled for the parents. The plaintiff husband, William B. Wear, appeals.
Our jurisdiction is under 20-3018(c) ( ).
We affirm the district court. Death ended the divorce action. The wife as the designated owner of the policy exercised her contractual right to change the beneficiary. Equity as a matter of law did not apply.
A summary of the district court's findings of fact sets the stage for presentation of the issues.
William and Arilla Wear were the parents of two daughters. William is retired from the Army. In January 1993, William and Arilla moved back to Hays, Kansas, where both were employed at various jobs. They decided to purchase a $75,000 life insurance policy on Arilla's life. William was the named beneficiary. Arilla was designated as the owner in the application. Arilla applied in 1993, through her employer, for a $25,000 life insurance policy. William was also the initial beneficiary of this policy.
On February 7, 1994, Arilla filed a petition for divorce. Approximately 10 days after filing, Arilla changed the beneficiaries on both life insurance policies from William to the defendants, James C. Mizell and Arilla (Dolly) A. Mizell, her parents. During the pendency of the divorce, the parties maintained separate homes. William paid child support. The premiums on the $75,000 policy were paid by automatic withdrawals from a joint tenancy checking account.
William and Arilla had discussed reconciling. They planned a camping trip with their children for April 29, 1994, which was Arilla's birthday. The day before, while driving to pick up camping equipment, Arilla was fatally injured in a one-vehicle accident.
William learned that the beneficiary on both policies had been changed to the Mizells. The $75,000 policy contained a double indemnity clause for accidents. Ultimately, the proceeds of both policies, $177,694.56, were paid to the Mizells. At the time of Arilla's death, she and William had substantial credit card indebtedness and also various bills, including a debt to William's mother of approximately $9,450.
The parties to this action discussed how the insurance proceeds should be used for the benefit of the two minor children. They also discussed whether the Mizells should pay some of William's indebtedness. The Mizells decided to make a gift to William of $20,000. Eventually, they made payments of approximately $20,000 directly to William's creditors.
The Mizells told William the insurance proceeds were theirs and that they intended to use the funds as they saw fit for the benefit of their two granddaughters. This lawsuit followed.
The Mizells were the beneficiaries and were entitled to the proceeds. The district judge did not view the matter as a case in equity. The Mizells argued that an accord and satisfaction existed, because William had accepted approximately $20,000 after his demand for the insurance proceeds. The district judge decided that the Mizells had intended the payment as a gift.
The Mizells did not cross-appeal on the accord and satisfaction issue. Thus, our only question is: Was the district court correct in ruling, as a matter of law, that equity did not apply? The answer is, "Yes."
William argues that the district court erred in refusing to exercise its equitable powers. The resolution of this appeal involves a review of the district court's conclusions of law. Our review of conclusions of law is unlimited. Gillespie v. Seymour, 250 Kan. 123, 129, 823 P.2d 782 (1991).
We described the interest of a beneficiary in a life insurance policy in Hollaway v. Selvidge, 219 Kan. 345, 349, 548 P.2d 835 (1976) (quoting 4 Couch on Insurance 2d § 27:58, pp. 561-64), as follows:
" "
Hollaway is factually distinguishable from this case. In Hollaway, we considered an attempted beneficiary change made after a property settlement agreement and divorce decree were entered. Leo (the insured) had accumulated KPERS benefits and obtained a life insurance and disability/accident policy while married to Rosalyn, who was designated as the beneficiary. As part of their divorce, Leo and Rosalyn reached a settlement agreement dividing their assets and relinquishing all claims against each other. Several months later, Leo married Judy. Within a few weeks Leo was killed. He had attempted to change the beneficiary from Rosalyn to Judy for both his KPERS benefits and the life insurance policy. His employer did not have the right forms on hand to accomplish the change. Despite the lack of beneficiary change, we affirmed the district court's determination that Judy, the second wife, as administrator of Leo's estate, was entitled to the KPERS benefits and the insurance proceeds. "We think a fair reading of [the settlement agreement] amounts to a relinquishment of [Rosalyn's] inchoate rights or expectancies both to the insurance proceeds and the KPERS benefits and the decedent's estate is therefore entitled to them." 219 Kan. at 350-51, 548 P.2d 835. Also, the district court concluded that Leo had done everything that he could to accomplish the beneficiary change.
William asserts that he and Arilla had a "tacit understanding that they would maintain life insurance on their own lives to protect the other." However, a tacit understanding does not amount to a contract. William, as the initial beneficiary on Arilla's life insurance policies, had no vested interest in the policies. His interest, if any, must arise under our domestic relations law.
A review of the pertinent domestic relations statutes is appropriate. K.S.A. 23-201 provides:
Arrilla's filing of the divorce petition activated K.S.A. 23-201(b). We said in Cady v. Cady, 224 Kan. 339, 344, 581 P.2d 358 (1978):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Estate of McLeish
...v. Nicholas, 277 Kan. 171, 179, 83 P.3d 214 (2004) (where there is no divorce, there is no division of property); Wear v. Mizell, 263 Kan. 175, 180, 946 P.2d 1363 (1997) (same). But see In re Estate of Loughmiller, 229 Kan. 584, 592, 629 P.2d 156 (1981) (written postnuptial agreement execut......
-
Thomas v. Thomas
...divested at any time during the lifetime of the insured, by transfer, assignment, or change of beneficiary.” ’ [ Wear v. Mizell,] 263 Kan. [175,] at 178, 946 P.2d 1363 [ (1997) ] (quoting Hollaway v. Selvidge, 219 Kan. 345, 349, 548 P.2d 835 [1976] ). Had [the wife] and [the husband] not be......
-
Nicholas v. Nicholas
...of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that are at issue. Our review of conclusions of law is unlimited. Wear v. Mizell, 263 Kan. 175, 177, 946 P.2d 1363 (1997). Did the Trial Court and Court of Appeals Err in Ruling That Transfers Made Contingent Upon One Spouse's Death Dispose of Mar......
-
Schwarz v. Schwarz
...the marriage and the divorce action. "A divorce action is purely personal and ends on the death of either spouse." Wear v. Mizell , 263 Kan. 175, 180, 946 P.2d 1363 (1997). It was after Father's death that Grandmother initiated this action in November 2018 for grandparent visitation under K......
-
§ 7.08 Characterizing Life Insurance
...W. Va. 343, 465 S.E.2d 614 (1995). But see, Thomas v. Thomas, 35 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1423 (Ala. App. July 17, 2009).[338] Wear v. Mizell, 263 Kan. 175, 946 P.2d 1363 (1997).[339] See, e.g., Weeks v. Weeks, 101 Idaho 213, 611 P.2d 133 (1980). See also: Colorado: In re Marriage of Sharp, 823 P......
-
Some Issues Concerning the Property of Married Persons in Kansas
...266 Kan. 347, 969 P.2d 880 (1998), for a recent case on dissipation assets. [FN26]. 2 Amer. Law of Prop., §§ 6.2 & 6.10, (1952). [FN27]. 263 Kan. 175, 946 P.2d 1363 (1997). [FN28]. Id. at 180, 946 P.2d at 1367. [FN29]. 758 F. Supp. 646 (D. Kan. 1990). [FN30]. 245 Kan. 178, 777 P.2d 773 (198......