Lea v. Almore
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00357-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-03-2006 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - M.R.C.P. 54(b) Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance policy - Beneficiary designation form - 5 U.S.C. §8705(a) - 5 C.F.R. §870.802 - Presence of witnesses Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-04-2005 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: James Persons Disposition: DISSOLVED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, THEREBY AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF LIFE INSURANCE PROCEEDS TO RACHEL ALMORE. Case Number: C2401-03-01975 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Clemie L. Lea, Administratrix of the Estate of Bernard Johnson, Deceased |
MELVIN G. COOPER |
||
| Appellee: | Rachel Almore | JOSEPH P. HUDSON, MALCOLM F. JONES |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Wills & estates - M.R.C.P. 54(b) Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance policy - Beneficiary designation form - 5 U.S.C. §8705(a) - 5 C.F.R. §870.802 - Presence of witnesses |
| Summary of the Facts: | The chancery court admitted to probate the typed will of Bernard Johnson; appointed Rachel Almore administratrix of the Estate of Bernard Johnson; and dissolved a temporary restraining order, thereby paying Rachel Almore life insurance proceeds held by the Clerk of the Harrison County Chancery Court. Clemie Lea, Bernard Johnson’s mother, appeals the judgment. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Lea argues that the beneficiary designation form for Johnson’s Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance policy is invalid because it was improperly witnessed since the second person signing as a witness did not actually view the insured signing the form. Though the issue of the life insurance policy was not pled initially, the group life insurance policy became part of Lea’s claims by ore tenus motion of her attorney. In his final judgment, which resolved all outstanding claims of the parties, the chancellor approved the validity of Almore as designated beneficiary of Johnson’s life insurance policy. Thus, this issue received final adjudication from the chancery court required under M.R.C.P. 54(b). A federal statute, 5 U.S.C. §8705(a), proves that upon the establishment of a valid claim, if there is no designated beneficiary, and the decedent has no widow or children, the decedent’s surviving parents receive the life insurance proceeds. Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. §870.802, if the employee wishes to designate a beneficiary different from the order of precedent, he must properly fill out and file a designation of beneficiary form which requires it to be in writing, signed by the insured individual, and witnessed and signed by two people. Neither party disputes that one witness was absent when Johnson signed his designation form. The only two applicable cases cited do not require the witness of a designation form to be present if the insured acknowledges his signature to the witness. A presence requirement for witnesses is unnecessary because the purpose of a witness is to establish the intent of the insured and make certain the insured voluntarily signed the form. It is sufficient if the insured specifically tells the witnesses he signed the forms and intends to leave the proceeds to the named beneficiary. Testimony proves that Johnson expressed both his intent to the witnesses and that the witnesses knew Johnson and were familiar with his signature. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
