Martin v. Ealy


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-CA-00755-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-18-2003
Opinion Author: Irving, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contempt - Life insurance - Binding contract
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-10-2002
Appealed from: Rankin County Chancery Court
Judge: John Grant
Disposition: CONTEMPT - APPELLANT FAILED TO FOLLOW PROVISIONS OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE. APPELLANT ORDERED TO MAKE APPELLEE PRIMARY BENEFICIARY OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICY IN THE AMOUNT OF $362,000. APPELLANT ALSO ORDERED TO PAY APPELLEE’S ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COURT COSTS.
Case Number: 36,163

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Joseph Victor Martin




ANSELM J. MCLAURIN



 

Appellee: Donna Suzette Martin Ealy MELISSA LEE DAY GARDNER  

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: Contempt - Life insurance - Binding contract

Summary of the Facts: Joseph Martin was found in contempt for failing to maintain a life insurance policy naming his former spouse, Donna Ealy, as the primary beneficiary, as required by the final judgment of divorce. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Joseph argues that the chancellor erred in ordering the reinstatement of the life insurance because the facts clearly show that Donna was not awarded an ownership interest in his life insurance policies upon their divorce. He argues that because Donna was only given the right to be maintained as the primary beneficiary thereof, the award was in the nature of alimony or support and was subject to termination upon the occurrence of a proper change in circumstances. Divorce alone does not divest one of the right to receive life insurance proceeds under a former spouse's policy. The provisions contained within a property settlement agreement executed prior to a dissolution of marriage, purporting to resolve the parties' property rights, are interpreted by the courts as any other contract. In the agreement in this case, Donna waived all rights to alimony, and Joseph agreed to maintain in force the same life insurance coverage that was in effect at the time of the parties’ divorce. Joseph also agreed that beneficiaries of such insurance policies would not be changed without Donna’s consent. There is nothing suggesting that the life insurance provision was a form of support or maintenance. Therefore, the agreement is a binding contract.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court