Cress v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Co., 6:20-cv-01823

Cress filed suit on behalf of his minor son R.L.C. seeking proceeds of a $100,000 life‑insurance policy issued by Brighthouse, which named Chasity Hood (the decedent Morrow’s sister) as sole beneficiary.
A Mississippi Agreed Final Judgment required each parent to maintain a $100,000 life policy for RLC’s benefit; Morrow died and there is dispute whether the Brighthouse proceeds are available for RLC.
Brighthouse filed counterclaims and a crossclaim; parties negotiated a settlement after litigation commenced.
The proposed Agreement splits the Policy proceeds: Hood receives $50,001 and RLC $49,999, with RLC’s funds directed to a UTMA account controlled by Cress for RLC’s benefit.
Parties structured the split in part to avoid appointment of a guardian ad litem and to minimize costs; each party represents they had roughly a 50% chance of prevailing at trial.
The magistrate judge recommended approval, concluding no guardian ad litem was necessary (no conflict) and the settlement is fair, reasonable, not collusive, and in RLC’s best interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a guardian ad litem must be appointed for the minor under Rule 17(c)	Cress (as natural guardian and plaintiff) represents RLC’s identical interests; no conflict exists so GAL unnecessary	Hood/parties did not show a conflict; they agree GAL unnecessary	Appointment unnecessary under Rule 17(c); court need not appoint GAL absent conflict (noting Florida statute would mandate GAL at $50,000+)
Whether the settlement is in the minor’s best interest and should be approved	The split secures nearly half the proceeds for RLC in a UTMA for his benefit and avoids expensive, uncertain litigation	Settlement reflects litigation risk (each side ~50% chance); avoids fruitless pursuit of estate assets	Settlement approved as fair, adequate, reasonable and in RLC’s best interest
Whether the allocation was impermissibly collusive or structured to defeat protections	Parties say split was chosen to avoid GAL costs and to fairly allocate litigation risk	Hood contends she is rightful beneficiary; Cress argues equitable remedies may reach proceeds but estate lacks assets	No evidence of collusion; allocation permissible and not contrary to minor’s interests
Who bears attorneys’ fees and costs and effect on fairness	Cress: each party bears its own fees to preserve fund for RLC	Hood: likewise no claim seeking fees from minor’s share	Court notes parties agreed to bear own fees; absence of fee claims supports approval

Sullivan v. Dep’t of Transp., 595 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (court approval required for settlements after action involving a child is commenced)
In re Smith, 926 F.2d 1027 (11th Cir. 1991) (settlement must be fair, adequate, reasonable and not collusive)
Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2001) (Rule 17(c) controls appointment of guardian ad litem; no appointment needed absent conflict)
Roberts v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 256 F.2d 35 (5th Cir. 1958) (Rule 17(c) authority on guardian ad litem appointment)
McLaughlin v. Lara, 133 So. 3d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (purpose of court approval is to protect minor and ensure releases are legally effective)
Wilson v. Griffiths, 811 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (settlement must be for the ward’s best interest)
Allen v. Montalvan, 201 So. 3d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (gross settlement amount includes total recovery in which the minor participates for GAL‑appointment analysis)