diMonda v. LincolnNational Corp , 2025 VT 45 [8/8/2025]
REIBER,
C.J. This appeal concerns entitlement
to the proceeds of two life insurance policies.
Plaintiff Victoria diMonda claims an equitable interest in a portion of
the proceeds based on her stipulated divorce agreement with decedent, which was
adopted as a final order by the family division. The civil division denied plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment and granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment and
judgment on the pleadings. We affirm the
judgment granting interpleader relief to defendant USAA Life Insurance Co., but
otherwise reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The
primary issue on appeal is whether the trial court correctly held that the
life-insurance provision in the 2011 divorce order was invalid and as an
attempt to secure postmortem maintenance.
The 2011 stipulated
order provided that “[Decedent] shall maintain in place his present life
insurance policy with SGLI with a payable on death benefit of $400,000, or a
policy which has the same minimum death benefit, at his option [and] shall name
Plaintiff as primary, 100% beneficiary on this life insurance policy for at
least the next fifteen (15) years…”
Decedent
retired from the military in April 2021, making him ineligible for the SGLI
policy, and he did not thereafter obtain a new policy with the same minimum death benefit that
named plaintiff as sole beneficiary.
However, when decedent died in December
2023, he held two other policies. In 2015, he obtained a $400,000 life
insurance policy from USAA Life Insurance Co. and named Barrows as the sole
beneficiary on this policy. In 2020, he obtained
a $250,000 life insurance policy from Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. and also
named Barrows as the primary beneficiary.
In January
2024. plaintiff filed this action against Lincoln, USAA, and Barrows, seeking a
declaration that she was entitled to be paid $400,000 under the terms of the
final divorce order.
Barrows
moved for judgment on the pleadings. She
argued that the life-insurance provision in the final divorce order was invalid
because it would violate this Court’s caselaw prohibiting courts from awarding
postmortem spousal maintenance. Lincoln also moved for judgment on the pleadings.
It argued that even if the provision were enforceable, the plain language of
the order did not apply to Lincoln’s $250,000 policy. USAA moved for interpleader relief in the
form of an order requiring it to deposit its policy’s death benefit with the
court and dismiss USAA from the action.
Finally, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing that the
life-insurance provision was enforceable both because it was not tied to the
spousal-maintenance provision and because decedent agreed to it.
The civil
division granted defendants’ motions and denied plaintiff’s motion. The court agreed with defendants that the
life-insurance provision in the final order was intended to secure spousal
maintenance beyond death and was therefore invalid and unenforceable. The court held that Barrows was entitled to
retain the $250,000 death benefit paid by Lincoln. It ordered USAA to pay the $400,000 death
benefit on its policy into escrow.
Our
decisions make clear the family division does not have authority to order
spousal maintenance to continue beyond the obligor’s death or to require the
obligor spouse to name the obligee as a beneficiary on a life insurance policy
for the purpose of securing unpaid maintenance.
However, these decisions do not support the
trial court’s conclusion that the life insurance provision in this case was
unenforceable, for two reasons. First, it is not clear that the life-insurance
provision was actually intended to secure post-mortem maintenance.
Second, the
provision was not imposed sua sponte by the family division. Rather, the parties agreed to it as part of
their stipulated property settlement. Because, as we acknowledged in Justis and Meier,
the parties can agree to postmortem maintenance, it follows that they may agree
to secure a maintenance obligation with life insurance. Justis v. Rist, 159 Vt. 240, 244 (1992) (“[T]he
courts have no authority to order maintenance to continue beyond the life of
the obligor spouse unless the parties have agreed otherwise.” (emphasis
added)).; Meier v. Meier, 163 Vt. 608, 610 (1994) (mem.)(
“the parties may agree to maintenance
following the death of the obligor.” )
We reverse the trial court’s judgment, except for the portion of the order granting interpleader relief to USAA. No party challenges the court’s award of interpleader relief to USAA and our holding does not affect this aspect of the judgment.
We remand
for the court to consider whether plaintiff is equitably entitled to recover
$400,000 or some other amount from the proceeds of either of the policies at
issue in this case, and whether her claim takes priority.
The court
should also address defendants’ claims that the life insurance provision does
not entitle plaintiff to the proceeds of either the USAA or Lincoln policies
because neither existed at the time of the divorce.
Affirmed
as to the judgment granting interpleader relief to defendant USAA Life
Insurance Co.; otherwise, reversed and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
TEACHOUT,
Supr. J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned, joined by EATON, J., dissenting in
part. I dissent as to that portion of
the instructions on remand concerning distribution of the $400,000 USAA
insurance proceeds. Equity is the basis
for plaintiff’s entitlement to life insurance for the reasons set forth in the
majority opinion, but once plaintiff is entitled to receive life insurance,
enforcement of the parties’ negotiated stipulation calls for her to have the
full USAA policy proceeds, as that $400,000 amount was specifically provided
for in the stipulation.
Under both the court order and the contract
created by the stipulation, plaintiff was guaranteed to be the “100%
beneficiary” of $400,000 in life insurance for fifteen years. Decedent died
within fifteen years of the stipulation.
Equitable enforcement of the insurance provision does not extend to
giving the trial court the discretion to divide up the funds between plaintiff
and other parties whose claims arose later.
I would
order the trial court on remand to award plaintiff the $400,000 proceeds of the
USAA insurance policy, award Barrows the full amount of proceeds of the Lincoln
policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment