Crawford v. Barker
64 So. 3d 1246
Fla.2011Background
- Linda Crawford petitions for review of Barker v. Crawford, challenging a Third District ruling that deferred compensation death benefits are determined by the dissolution agreement rather than the policy’s beneficiary designation.
- The dispute centers on whether settlement-language referencing a beneficiary-designated policy, plan, or account can override the pre-dissolution beneficiary designation.
- Manuel Crawford listed Linda as beneficiary of a deferred compensation fund since 1993; he died about a year after divorce with no change to that designation.
- Amended mediation agreement stated Manuel would retain retirement money with the Deferred Compensation Fund (f/k/a Pepsco) and did not specify death-benefit disposition.
- Circuit court initially found Linda entitled to the death benefits; Third District reversed, holding the mediation language waives the pre-dissolution designation.
- Florida Supreme Court held that absent explicit reference to death benefits or a beneficiary change in the settlement, the predissolution beneficiary designation controls; Cooper II governs and Smith/Luszcz align with that approach; quashed Third District and approved Smith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether settlement language overrides predissolution designation | Crawford argues no explicit death-benefits) override; Cooper II applies | Barker argues general language can waive pre-dissolution designation | Abandonment of pre-dissolution designation requires explicit language; designation controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. Muccitelli (Cooper I), 661 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (beneficiary designation controls absent explicit waivers in settlement)
- Cooper II, 682 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2000) (plain language of documents controls; waiver must specify proceeds/death benefits)
- Smith v. Smith, 919 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (without specific reference to who receives death benefits, settlement cannot override designation)
- Luszcz v. Lavoie, 787 So.2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (IRAs; without dissolution-decree beneficiary constraint, owner can designate beneficiary)
- In re Estate of Dellinger, 760 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (IRA-like accounts; protection of designated beneficiary)
- Waller v. Pope, 715 So.2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (beneficiary rights attach at owner's death; before then, only an expectancy)