Branch v. Monumental Life Insurance Co.
422 S.W.3d 919
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Interpleader by Monumental Life Insurance to resolve competing claims to a $10,000 policy insuring Archie Branch Sr.; Loretta Young Branch named beneficiary prior to divorce; Archie and Loretta divorced on May 3, 2011; Archie died six weeks later.
- Obituary identified five potential children: Sheila Thompson, Edward Branch Sr., Roy Branch, Wanda Ford, and Graylyn Judkins; funds deposited with court after interpleader.
- Trial court later dismissed Monumental from the case or granted nonsuit; record unclear on the formal motion or order.
- Trial on the merits addressed Loretta’s claim that she, as former spouse and former beneficiary, was entitled to proceeds; court held Loretta has no right to the funds and the money remains in court until Archie’s estate is probated and heirs identified.
- Loretta appealed pro se on her own behalf and for others; Wanda’s appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution; Graylyn’s appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Loretta’s appeal as to her claims proceeded and is the subject of this decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Loretta’s rights to proceeds were preserved given the policy was allegedly the wrong document attached. | Loretta contends the attached policy is a sample, not the actual Monumental policy; she seeks proceeds or premium refund. | Monumental was not required to attach the policy; interpleader assigns burden to claimants to prove their own rights. | Loretta’s challenge fails; attachment not required and burden on Loretta to prove her rights. |
| Whether Loretta proved she had a right to the proceeds after divorce. | Loretta argues she remained intended beneficiary despite divorce. | Statute 9.301 makes former-spouse designation ineffective upon divorce unless exceptions apply; Loretta did not prove exceptions. | Loretta’s designation ineffective as a matter of law; no exception shown. |
| Whether evidentiary rulings excluding Loretta’s testimony and documents were reversible errors. | Loretta claims excluded evidence showed ownership/rights to proceeds or premiums. | Record shows evidentiary rulings were proper or not preserved; collateral issues not reviewable. | No reversible error; exclusions properly applied or not preserved. |
| Whether Monumental could be released from the interpleader due to Loretta’s counterclaim under the prompt-payment statute. | Loretta/Graylyn argue Monumental’s departure precluded release. | Record insufficient to review order releasing Monumental; no proper motion/order in the record. | Issue not reviewable; release affirmed by lack of proper record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Northshore Bank v. Commercial Credit Corp., 668 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984) (interpleader burden on claimants to prove their own rights)
- Worden v. Thornburg, 564 S.W.2d 480 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1978) (burden on claimant to show priority in interpleader)
- Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444 (Tex.1990s) (collateral attack limitations in judgments; remedies through appeal)
- Gillespie v. Moore, 635 S.W.2d 927 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1982) (premodern law on spousal designation pre-dating 9.301; context cited regarding changes in law)
- Partin v. De Cordova, 464 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1971) (predecessor cases cited regarding beneficiary designations)
- Pitts v. Ashcraft, 586 S.W.2d 685 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1979) (predecessor context on beneficiary designations and divorce)