Myers v. Myers
213 N.C. App. 171
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Paula Myers and Decedent were married (1991) with Travis as their child; Decedent had two other sons, Jerry and Tommy.
- A 1994 Forsyth County consent order required Decedent to designate Travis as a beneficiary of life insurance and other death benefits (not less than 33%).
- Decedent died on May 3, 2008 with no designation of Travis as beneficiary; Jerry and Tommy were named beneficiaries of the life policy and CIP plan; PEP plan had no named beneficiary.
- Beneficiary arrangements generally followed ERISA; after death, plan proceeds were paid to named beneficiaries, not Travis.
- A 2009 consent order joined Travis as a plaintiff and Jerry and Tommy as defendants, dismissed Decedent’s estate, and preserved estate jurisdiction for the court.
- In 2010 the trial court held that “death benefits” in the 1994 order included the plans’ proceeds and imposed a constructive trust for Travis (one-third of total proceeds) against Jerry and Tommy; Defendants appeal on laches and constructive-trust grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 'death benefits' in the 1994 consent order is ambiguous. | Myers | Myers | Not ambiguous; consent order clearly includes plans. |
| Whether laches bars Plaintiffs’ claim. | Myers | Myers | No; Paula lacked knowledge of designation, no prejudice shown. |
| Whether imposing a constructive trust was proper. | Myers | Myers | Proper; inequitable conduct in failure to designate Travis justifies a constructive trust. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reaves v. Hayes, 174 N.C.App. 341 (2005) (contract interpretation of consent orders)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 145 N.C.App. 453 (2001) (contract ambiguity and meaning in context)
- Holshouser v. Shaner Hotel Grp. Props. One, 134 N.C.App. 391 (1999) (ambiguous language; de novo review of contract ambiguity)
- Miller v. Green, 183 N.C. 652 (1922) (latent ambiguity under extrinsic facts)
- Roper v. Edwards, 323 N.C.461 (1988) (constructive trusts without fraud when inequitable)
- Electrical South, Inc. v. Lewis, 96 N.C.App. 160 (1989) (restrictive drafting rules against draftsman when ambiguity exists)
- MMR Holdings, LLC v. City of Charlotte, 148 N.C.App. 208 (2001) (laches burden on claimant; delay must prejudice)
- Taylor v. N.C. Dept. of Transportation, 86 N.C.App. 299 (1987) (laches analysis factors)