Rose Coleman v. Bryan Olson, 551 S.W.3d 686

Background

Jessica Olson filed for divorce and served the complaint; Tennessee law (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-106(d)(2)) then enjoined changing beneficiaries on life insurance policies without consent or court order.
While hospitalized and shortly after filing, Jessica signed a handwritten beneficiary change naming her mother, Rose Coleman, as primary and her child as contingent; Jessica died days later and Coleman collected ~ $393,000 in proceeds.
Coleman sought grandparent visitation; Olson did not oppose visitation in his circuit-court answer but counterclaimed to recover the insurance proceeds alleging the beneficiary change violated the injunction and involved fraud/forgery/undue influence.
The trial court found the signature genuine, found no fraud, and (1) awarded the insurance funds to the child (finding an intent to benefit the child), ordered accounting/restitution for some expenditures, and (2) granted Coleman grandparent visitation.
The Court of Appeals reversed the visitation award (holding Coleman failed to prove parental opposition) and awarded the insurance proceeds to Olson after considering equities, relying on a flexible equitable approach from Aither v. Estate of Aither.
The Tennessee Supreme Court: (a) held Jessica violated the statutory injunction by changing beneficiaries; (b) held the divorce action abated on her death but a court may still provide equitable remedies for injunction violations after abatement; (c) reversed both lower courts’ specific distributions and remanded for an equitable hearing on who should receive all or part of the proceeds; (d) held Coleman was not entitled to court-ordered grandparent visitation because Olson did not oppose visitation when her petition was filed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Coleman)	Defendant's Argument (Olson)	Held
Whether Jessica’s beneficiary change violated the divorce injunction	Coleman implicitly: change was valid because signed by Jessica and intended to benefit the child	Olson: change violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-106(d)(2) and thus should be set aside	Held: Jessica violated the statutory injunction by removing Olson as beneficiary
Whether abatement on death bars equitable relief for injunction violations	Coleman argued proceeds belonged to named beneficiary and trial court could equitably distribute to child	Olson argued the injunction violation requires restoration of status quo (him) or other remedy	Held: Divorce abated on death but courts may still remedy injunction violations by considering equities after abatement
Proper remedy/distribution of life-insurance proceeds	Coleman: she is the named beneficiary and kept proceeds; trial court gave funds to child based on intent	Olson: proceeds should be restored to him (Court of Appeals) because of injunction violation and his financial need	Held: Trial court erred in awarding proceeds to child; Court of Appeals erred in awarding to Olson without adequate evidentiary findings—remanded for an equitable hearing to determine distribution
Grandparent visitation under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-306 when parent has not opposed	Coleman: existence of animosity, risk of future denial, and some restrictions justified court-ordered visitation	Olson: he did not oppose visitation and therefore statutory threshold was not met	Held: Statute requires actual parental opposition at time of filing; Coleman failed to prove opposition and visitation award was reversed

Key Cases Cited

Martin v. Powers, 505 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2016) (standard of review for statutory construction)
Mills v. Fulmarque, Inc., 360 S.W.3d 362 (Tenn. 2012) (plain-meaning approach to statutory interpretation)
Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013) (parents’ presumption of superiority in custody/visitation disputes)
Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn. 1993) (substantial-harm requirement limits state interference in parental decisionmaking)
Aither v. Estate of Aither, 913 A.2d 376 (Vt. 2006) (permitting equitable remedies for injunction violations after divorce abatement)